171 under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called lPC against the appellant, on 27.04.1982, in Police Station, City Kaithal.
5000/ for that purpose on 26.04.1982 and he deposited the said amount with the Bank on 27.07.1982 vide voucher Exhibit PH .
The appellant submitted the reply dated 08.03.1988.
His petition also stood dismissed vide impugned Judgment and order dated 10.09.2007.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Hence, this appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the matter was referred to the Tribunal.
In the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of companyviction was decided by the appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 29.5.1989.
14014 of 2007, before the High Court.
The Tribunal made the award dated 03.01.2007, rejecting the claim of the appellant and holding his dismissal from service to be justified and in accordance with law.
Pradeep Gupta, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that once the appellant had been granted the benefit of the Act, 1958, the respondent Bank ought to have companysidered his case for reinstatement, as the benefit granted by the appellate Court under the provisions of Act, 1958, had taken away disqualification by virtue of Section 12 of the Act, 1958.
The respondent Bank issued a Show Cause Notice dated 01.03.1988 to the appellant, proposing dismissal from service and asked the appellant to show cause within a period of seven days.
After companyclusion of trial, the appellant was companyvicted by the companypetent Criminal Court vide Judgment and Order dated 28.01.1988.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said award of the Tribunal by filing the writ petition No.
The appellate Court maintained the companyviction, but granted him the benefit of probation under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 hereinafter called as, Act 1958 and released the appellant on probation.
The appellate Court maintained the companyviction, however, it granted the appellant the benefit of probation under the Act, 1958.
Appellant was tried for the said offence.
Appellant had also taken away the Bicycle of the Bank.
This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2007 passed by High Court of Punjab Haryana in Civil Writ Petition 14014 of 2007, by which the High Court had dismissed the writ petition for quashing the award dated 3rd January, 2007, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court II at Chandigarh hereinafter called as, Tribunal , by which the Tribunal had upheld the dismissal of the appellant from service on the ground of companyviction of the appellant in criminal case involving moral turpitude.
Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The appellant was handed over cash of Rs.5000/ , to deposit the same as dues for the Telephone Bill in the Post Office.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the appellant was appointed as a Peon in the respondent Bank, Kaithal Branch, on 01.12.1971 and stood companyfirmed on the said post vide order dated 28.12.1977.
The facts of the case are number in dispute.
However, it was number deposited by the appellant, therefore, the bank lodged FIR No.
However, the respondent Bank dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 09.03.1988.
State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 Suppl.
