STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the petitioner -State Bank of India seeks quashing of Annexure -8 dated 31 -10 -1986 by which the respondent -Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and an authority under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 has allowed the complaint of respondent no. 3 made under Sec. 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and directed State Bank of India to re -instate the complainant on the post from which he was dismissed and be paid all the back wages and benefits including yearly increments up to date putting him on the same position on which he would have been placed today had he not been dismissed from service. The facts relevant for appreciating the points canvassed before me falls in a short compass. Respondent no. 3 joined the service of the Bank at Balasore some time in February, 1966. In August, 1968, he came on transfer to Muzaffarpur and worked for about four years. On 25 -2 -1972 the then Agent of the Muzaffarpur Branch asked the complainant to explain about the detention of some cheques in contravention of the Bank's Rule for unduly long period. His reply not being satisfactory, without framing any charge the complainant was suspended on 1 -8 -1972. Ten months thereafter the complainant was served with charge sheet dated 26 -5 -1973 asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for being negligent in duty and for fraudulently removing fourteen demand draft cheques. The departmental enquiry was completed some time on 11 -7 -1977 and on 1 -8 -1977 the Regional Manager passed an order of dismissal (Annexure -5). As against that the complainant resorted to an internal remedy by filing an appeal as provided under sub -paragraph no. 12 of paragraph no. 521 of the Shashtry Award which was ultimately dismissed. The order of dismissal of the appeal (Annexure -6) without a speaking order by giving reasons was communicated to the complainant on, 24 -3 -1978. The respondent no. 3 filed a complaint under Sec. 26(2) of the Act on 26 -6 -1978 along with a petition for condonation of delay alleging that he had not been guilty of any misconduct as held by the employer and the so called departmental enquiry was sham and in complete violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as he was not provided with copies of important documents connected with the charge for which copies were sought for.

(2.) Both parties led oral and documentary evidence under Sec. 26(5) (a) of the Act before the Authority constituted under the Act. On a thorough consideration of all the materials the Authority recorded the following finding on merit.

(3.) Mr. Basudeva Prasad, appearing on behalf of the Bank, did not assail the finding on merit recorded by the authority. The only two paints urged before me are :