The Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence tendered on behalf of the Bank as well as the evidence given by the respondent, recorded his findings holding that both the charges were proved against the respondent and, basis, came to the view that the actions of the respondent were prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and amounted to gross misconduct, so that he proposed to award the punishment of dismissal from the Banks service.
5,100/ Naya Bazar LBC 5 drawn on Hiralal Shyam Rs.
To companyer the misdeeds of Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma the then Sub Agent of Naya Bazar Office, Mr. P.C. Jain Treasurers representative stated in his explanation dated 16 2 1961 that cash was received at the office at about 11 a.m.i.e.
the enquiry was fair, the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to go into the question whether the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer were companyrect and companyld number sit in judgment over those findings like a Court of Appeal.
4,950/ Thus it was within the knowledge of Shri P.C. Jain that the bills of Messrs Gupta Iron Industries were drawn on bogus firms and that those were retired by drawers representative who accompanies Mr. P.C. Jain to Muzaffarnagar.
Instead of reporting, such serious matters to higher authorities, Mr. C. Jain claims that he had never visited Muzaffarnagar.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated July 10, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal Delhi in O.P. No.
Bishan Narain, P.C. Bhartari, J.B. Dadachanji and C.L. Chopra, for the appellant.
Mr. P.C. Jain encashed on 25 260 cheque No.
Since an industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, an application under s. 33 2 b of the Act was made requesting the Tribunal to accord approval to this order of dismissal.
R. Gokhale, Janardan Sharma and T.R. Bhasin, for the respondent.
after the time for presenting of the clearing cheques at the State Bank of India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is this order of the Tribunal that has been challenged in this appeal.
43004 dated 14 1 60 drawn by Messrs Mool Chand Hari Kishan for Rs.
498 of 1966.
The respondent was given a weeks time to show cause against this proposed punishment and, thereafter, an order was made dismissing the respondent with effect from 18th July, 1962 and a months wages were paid to him in accordance with the provision companytained in s. 33 2 b of the Act.
The two charges flamed were as follows On 14 1 1960, a sum of Rs.
30,400/ was paid to Mr. P.C. Jain by the Assistant Cashier Mr. Nand Kishore out of the cheque No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The Central Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi has flied this appeal, by special leave, challenging an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, refusing to accord approval to an order of dismissal of the respondent, Prakash Chand Jain, under section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
63,000/ .
A charge sheet, companytaining two charges was served on the respondent on 21st July, 1961 in order to initiate formally an enquiry for the purpose of taking disciplinary ,action against him.
Taking this money Mr. P.C. Jain on the same day i.e. 14 1 1960 left for Muzaffarnagar in companypany of some persons to retire the following bills drawn by M s. Gupta Iron Industries Naya Bazar LBC 3 drawn on Puran Chand Rs.
46,000/ from the United Bank of India Ltd., Chandni Chowk and brought cash to Naya Bazar after 11.30 a.m.i.e.
The above acts of Mr. Jain were prejudicial to the interests of the Bank as defined in paragraph 521 4 J of the Sastry Award and amount to gross misconduct.
He had numberother talk with him.
400506 for Rs.
before the clearing time.
79 of 1962.
Enquiry Officer, the respondent only accosted him once and bid him Jai Ram Ji Ki.
Subsequently, an enquiry was held by Mr. Tipnis, one of the senior Officers of the Bank.
The inquiry will be held on 12 8 1961 at Chandni Chowk Branch at 10.30 a.m. by Mr. P.B. Tipnis, Chief Agent, Agra.
