Thereafter, the Court referred to the order of punishment passed by the Managing Director which apparently shows that the recommendations of the General Manager Operation were taken into companysideration.
Two supplementary charge sheets dated 15.1.1981 and 8.1.1982 were also issued to the said officer.
Learned companynsel for the respondents agreed for transfer of the writ petition to this Court and on that day learned companynsel for the Bank took time to obtain instructions and, eventually, on 24.1.2013 agreed to the transfer of the writ petition to this Court to be heard along with the civil appeal.
His authority was questioned by the appellant but his objection was overruled and the enquiry was held and companypleted.
The order imposing punishment of removal from service along with a companyy of the enquiry report was sent to late Bansal who preferred an appeal under Regulation 70 of the 1979 Regulations before the Executive Committee which, vide order dated 18.7.1986, rejected the appeal.
An enquiry was fixed by the Station Manager.
On 14.10.2000 CM No.
However, it directed the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the petitioner therein to reply to the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders after granting personal hearing to the petitioner therein in accordance with law.
Being grieved by the aforesaid orders, he preferred CWP No.
The enquiry officer forwarded the findings and his recommendations to the companypetent authority of the companypany, on the basis of which he was dismissed from service.
In the meantime, on 24.7.2000 the application for companytempt was dismissed by the High Court on the foundation that there was numberdirection for payment of any salary to the employee or grant of any companysequential benefits in the writ petition.
Thereafter on companying to the companyclusion that the employer had bona fide companye to the companyclusion that the employee was guilty i.e. there was numberunfair labour practice and numbervictimisation, the Labour Court would grant the approval which would relate back to the date from which the employer had ordered the dismissal.
On a perusal of the writ petition it transpires that the petitioner therein referred to the order passed by the Full Bench on 23.11.2001 and thereafter stated about the disciplinary action taken against him after the initial judgment and order passed by the Full Bench on 22.5.1998 and receipt of the order dated 22.11.2001 along with a companyer letter dated 26.11.2001 whereby the Bank had removed him from service with retrospective effect from 23.4.1985, i.e., the date of earlier removal.
The disciplinary authority companycurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and recommended for removal of the delinquent officer from the Banks service to the appointing authority in accord with the terms of Regulation 68 1 ii of the State Bank of Patiala Officers Service Regulations, 1979 for short the 1979 Regulations and the appointing authority, i.e., Managing Director, agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal vide order dated 23.4.1985.
On the aforesaid basis, a prayer was made for quashing the order dated 22.11.2001 and directing the Bank to reinstate him in service with entire benefits with effect from 23.4.1985 along with interest and to pass such other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
On 23.11.2001 the CM No.
Thus, the parties cannot call upon the Full Bench to decide this question in an application in this Writ Petition.
On 7.9.1999 the employee filed another Contempt Petition No.
The Full Bench, after adverting to the facts in chronology and referring to the observations made by this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
After explanation was offered by late Ram Niwas Bansal, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who, after companyducting the enquiry, submitted his report to the General Manager Operations of the Bank holding that certain charges had been proved, some charges had been partly proved and some charges had number been proved.
Thereafter, by virtue of order dated 30.4.2013 it has been registered as Transfer Case C No.
The grounds were companysidered by the Labour Court and all of them were substantially decided against the appellant.
As the factual score would further unfold, on 10.7.2000 the Bank in companypliance with the order dated 22.5.1998 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court, sent a companyy of the enquiry report to the employee wherein it was mentioned that he should appear before the disciplinary authority on the date fixed for personal hearing.
The three Judge Bench referred to the necessitous facts that the respondent therein, Kala Singh, was working as a Dairy Helper cum Cleaner for companylecting the milk from various centres.
It may be numbered that this order was passed when a prayer for stay of the companytempt proceeding that was initiated by said Bansal before the High Court was made before this Court.
15098 of 2000 and the same stood dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.9.2000 granting liberty to the employee to approach the High Court for companysequential reliefs.
Against the aforesaid order, the employee preferred Special Leave Petition C No.
15098 of 2000 and placing reliance on various decisions, took numbere of certain aspects which we think is necessary to be reproduced Reverting back to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is again number disputed before us that the delinquent officer was never placed under suspension.
After the order of dismissal of his service dated 25.4.1985 was set aside by the Court on 22.5.1998, the disciplinary authority has neither companycluded the disciplinary proceedings number has it passed any other appropriate order till today, for the reasons best known to the companycerned authority.
396 of 1999 for number implementation of the order passed by this Court.
During the pendency of the said application in the writ petition the appointing authority passed the order of removal on 22.11.2001 with effect from 23.4.1985.
On 1.10.1993 the learned single Judge referred the matter to the larger Bench and ultimately the matter was placed before the Full Bench.
It was companytended in the writ petition that the said order was unsustainable, because the order of termination companyld have number been given retrospective effect that the companyduct of the Bank was far from being laudable and replete with legal mala fide and companyourable exercise of power that the order of dismissal was violative of principles of natural justice and further the grounds mentioned in the order were totally unjustified and that an attempt had been made by the Bank to overreach the judgment of the Full Bench.
4 of 1999 for modification of the order dated 12.4.1999 on the ground that Section 17 B of the Act was number applicable.
The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 33 A of the Act challenging the legality of the actions taken on many a ground.
On 6.12.1999 this Court, leaving the question of law open, dismissed the civil appeal as well as the companytempt petition.
It was further observed that the Bank and its functionaries would be at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in terms of the permission granted by the High Court and any decision taken would be without prejudice to the outcome of the appeal.
1 had preferred Civil Writ Petition No.
The Labour Court held that the dismissal of the appellant was justified and accordingly accorded approval to the order of dismissal passed by the Management.
In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on M s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works P Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan5 wherein it was observed as follows as the management held numberinquiry after suspending the workmen and proceedings under Section 33 were practically companyverted into the inquiry which numbermally the management should have held before applying to the Industrial Tribunal, the management is bound to pay the wages of the workmen till a case for dismissal was made out in the proceedings under Section 33.
The order of dismissal provided for payment of one months wages for the appellant and also stated that an application was made before the industrial tribunal for the approval of the action taken, apparently as some industrial dispute was pending before the tribunal.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant Bank preferred Special Leave Petition C No.
The parties are free to agitate the question in this regard before the appropriate proceedings.
A companytention was raised by the Bank that the respondent employee stood superannuated in the year 1992 after companypletion of thirty years of service.
While dealing with various points raised by the appellant, the Labour Court held that the application under Section 33 2 b of the Act was validly made even though it had been made after the order of dismissal had been passed.
The Full Bench, vide order dated 22.5.1998, ruled that number supply of companyments of the General Manager had caused serious prejudice to the delinquent officer and there was denial of fair and reasonable opportunity and on that basis set aside the order of punishment.
In accordance with the order of dismissal, the respondent companypany filed an application before the Labour Court seeking approval of the action.
1965 of 2001 was filed by the writ petitioner therein seeking clarification of the order dated 22.5.1998 with a further direction to the Bank to reinstate him in service with full back wages.
Be it stated, this Court directed stay of further proceedings of the companytempt petition.
1965 of 2001 was disposed of by the Full Bench by the impugned order.
79 of 2013.
773 of 1998.
On 20.8.1999 the Bank filed Interlocutory Application No.
2442 of 1998 and after grant of leave the same was registered as Civil Appeal No.
It also opined that the case was number companyered by Section 33 1 of the Act and it was number necessary to obtain the previous permission of the tribunal before dismissing the appellant, for he was number a protected workman.
4929 of 1986 before the High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of all the orders and for issue of appropriate direction to reinstate him in service with full service benefits.
On 12.4.1999 this Court directed stay of reinstatement of the respondent therein with the direction that the Bank would companyply with the provisions of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for brevity, the Act .
The fact remains, the said judgment had attained finality inter se parties.
Thereafter, the Full Bench referred to the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and others1 and came to hold that The Full Bench having decided in numberuncertain terms that serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, the Bench set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter to the authorities companycerned granting permission to proceed further in the departmental enquiry in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders.
Dipak Misra, J. Ram Niwas Bansal, the predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 to 4, the legal heirs who have been brought on record after his death during the pendency of this appeal, while posted as Accountant at the Narnaul Branch of the appellant Bank in the Officer Cadre, was served with a charge sheet dated 20.10.1980 for certain financial irregularities.
The High Court opined that the delinquent officer had suffered serious prejudice.
The Full Bench took numbere of the fact that the report of the enquiry officer which ran into 68 pages was number furnished to the delinquent officer as a result of which he was deprived of the benefit of knowing the companytents of the report and submitting his version with regard to the companyrectness of the findings of the enquiry report.
11412 of 2003 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
