Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition was filed challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 21.2.2013.
(2.) The petitioner before this Court was initially appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier with Bharat Oversees Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') with effect from 14.9.1981. On 22.3.1995, he received a statement of charge which had alleged that there were 7 charges against him and that he had to reply against them within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his reply and an enquiry was undertaken. On 28.2.1996, a show cause notice alongwith the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and to the show cause notice, the petitioner replied. However, when on 11.5.1996, final order imposing a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner, he availed the remedy of appeal which was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal on 30.10.2003. When this reference was answered against the petitioner, the instant writ petition was filed.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:- I. The Tribunal had framed a preliminary issue and had decided the same on 15.11.2011 in which it was ultimately held that the departmental enquiry which was conducted by the respondent Bank was improper and that it was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Tribunal had given an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and the respondent Bank though led evidence on the charges no.4 and 5 did lead any evidence with regard to the other charges and, therefore, the Labour Court could have given any finding with regard to charges no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and, therefore, any findings which had been arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to these charges were to be set aside. II. While dealing with charges no. 4 and 5 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint as was made by the complainant Mrs. Meera Srivastava on 8.10.1994 was a motivated one and was dealt with by the Tribunal properly. Further, learned counsel submitted that when the charges were based on the fact that the petitioner had committed forgery and had defrauded the complainant Smt. Meera Srivastava, then they should have been proved to the hilt. The responsibility cast on the Tribunal while dealing with fraud was exactly that of a criminal court dealing with a case of fraud. In this regard learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1941 Privy Council 93 (A.L.N Narayanan Chettyar and Another v. Official Assignee, High Court Rangoon and Another) . He read out a certain paragraph of this decision and so the same are being reproduced here as under:- "There are other difficulties in the plaintiffs' way which have been sufficiently considered in the judgements of the High court. Fraud of this nature, like any other charge of a criminal offence whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court were justified in holding that the trial Judge's finding was largely based on suspicion and conjecture. There were documents unaccounted for which would conclusively prove the issue one way or the other. In their absence the High Court's decision on the merits was right and cannot be disturbed. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed. The appellants must pay the costs of the appeal.";