- (1.) By Court Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L)No.4458 of 2012, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal by which the Tribunal reinstated the respondent with 75% back wages, the appellant Bank has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the respondent was appointed in the year 1981 after death of her husband on compassionate ground as a subordinate staff and she was working with the bank. The allegation is that in the year 1994, the respondent and other staffs were engaged for counting of the cash, working under the supervision of one K. Kumar Swami (MW1), CashcumAccounts Clerk. Further case of the appellantBank is that when the work was in progress, missing of one bundle of Rs. 50/ was noticed and K.Kumar Swami(MW1) reported about the same. When search was going on, it is alleged that the respondentInderawati Devi confessed that she had taken the bundle and kept somewhere else and the missing bundle was brought. The charge was framed against the respondent and on 3.8.1994 chargesheet was submitted upon the respondent, which was denied by her. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who had conducted inquiry and found the charges proved and thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from services. The respondent had preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority, affirming the order of dismissal from services.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the imposition of dismissal from the services, the respondent preferred Industrial Dispute before the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, which was registered as Reference Case No.144 of 1997. By the award dated 9.11.2011, the Tribunal set aside the punishment of dismissal from services and directed the appellantBank for reinstatement of the respondent with 75% back wages. Challenging the impugned award, the appellantBank preferred writ petition being W.P.(L) No.4458 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge held that the Tribunal rightly found that there is no direct evidence against the concerned workman to support the charge of theft and concealment of bundle of Rs.50/ . The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the Tribunal has rightly considered and appreciated the evidence on record and punishment of her dismissal is shockingly severe and affirmed the order of reinstatement with 75% back wages and other consequential benefits.;