- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Naresh Chandra Singhal assailing award dated 23.01.1998 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in C.I.T. Case No.59/1988 and order of dismissal of services of petitioner dated 08.06.1987 (Annexure-7), and order dated 30.11.1987 (Annexure-8) of the appellate authority, thereby confirming his dismissal from service.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in New Bank of India on 13.07.1982. The said Bank was later merged with the Punjab National Bank on 04.09.1993. According to the petitioner, he was Assistant Secretary of the then New Bank of India Employees Union, Rajasthan Region (for short, the Union ) as well as President of its Alwar unit. There were certain demands raised by the Union. It is alleged that the management in revengeful manner placed office-bearers of the Union under suspension. The services of the President and Secretary of the said Union were terminated. Shri B.K. Pareek, the General Secretary, and Shri M.K. Papdiwal, the President of Rajasthan Unit of the Union, were transferred. Services of Shri Arun Sharma, Assistant General Secretary of the Union, were placed under suspension. All these orders were passed in June, 1985. Since the petitioner was Assistant Secretary of Rajasthan Unit of the Union, he too was intended to be transferred from Alwar to Jakharna. Petitioner filed a suit in the court of Munsiff, Alwar, on 24.06.1985 against the said order of transfer alleging mala-fides against Regional Manager, Jaipur, and Branch Manager, Alwar, that his order of transfer was made with oblique motives. Soon thereafter petitioner was served memo dated 21.02.1986. Along-with the suit, petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the trial court did not grant any injunction, petitioner filed an appeal against that order, and an injunction was granted on 24.04.1986. The petitioner was further served with memo dated 17.04.1986 for deduction of salary of one day i.e. 12.04.1986. Against the said deduction of salary, petitioner filed an application before the Payment of Wages Authority, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 31.07.1987 and the Bank was directed to pay him the same.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner further argued that Branch Manager of the bank Shri V.K. Khosla, Shri Thakur Naik and Shri R.A. Yadav, were personally biased with the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper. They asked the petitioner to make changes in the stock inventory register pertaining to a firm so that loan amount of Rs.1,27,000/- advanced to said firm be adjusted. The petitioner, however, refused to oblige them. It is contended that Shri Thakur Naik took a loan from the bank for second hand scooter. The invoice price thereof was Rs.8100/-, whereas the loan was sanctioned of Rs.9100/-. Petitioner made a complaint on 25.03.1986 to the Chief Vigilance Officer, New Bank of India, and also sent a copy thereof to the D.R.M. (Area Officer), Alwar. The cumulative effect of these was that those officers got annoyed with petitioner and they concocted a false story with regard to incident, which took place on 25.04.1986, alleging that the petitioner used filthy and unparliamentary language to the then Branch Manager Shri V.K. Khosla in presence of some other officers, like Shri K.S. Rathore. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.05.1986. A memo was served upon the petitioner on 26.06.1986. Petitioner submitted reply to aforesaid memo on 21.07.1986. He was further served with supplementary memo dated 05.09.1986 for the incident, which allegedly took place on 03.05.1986 and 05.06.1986, that petitioner threatened Shri Thakur Naik and used unparliamentary language. This was an afterthought only because respondent Bank wanted to launch Shri Thakur Naik as a witness against the petitioner, who was already prejudiced against him as the petitioner had submitted a complaint against him to the Chief Vigilance Officer. Shri Thakur Naik got false documents prepared against petitioner that petitioner got a news published in a local newspaper against the officers of the Bank, which tarnished the image of the Bank and to get the things manipulated.;