The other allegations were to the effect that the respondent, who was charged with the duty of supervising both these ledgers.
4 and 6, without obtaining the permission of the proper sanctioning authority.
Regarding the other minor allegations, that the respondent caused other officers to record debit balances incorrectly, and the loss of the pass book relating to ledger No.
Having due regard to these circumstances, he made a plea for mercy being shown to him, by cancelling the order of discharge and permitting him to resume his duties in the Bank.
This Was the answer, regarding the main allegations, companytained in the Banks letter, dated March 13/14, 1961.
in the objections, dated September 2, 1963, filed by the respondent before the Labour Court, for the first time he raised the plea that in view of the advice given by the officers of the Bank, he sent replies admitting his guilt regarding the allegations made against him, by the Bank.
The Bank companymunicated the order of discharge, by its letter, dated June 27, 1962, enclosing a pay order for Rs.
The respondent, numberdoubt, appears to have stated that some of the cheques, issued to the parties companycerned, have been initialled by an Officer of the Bank, Mr. Bhatena.
4, the respondent was exonerated.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated May 30, 1964 of the Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad in Application No.
July 1962.
4 was missing.
The Enquiry Officer, in his report, dated November 10, 1961, has, after referring to the nature of the enquiry companyducted by him, found the respondent guilty of the main charges of having permitted the parties companycerned, to obtain overdrafts, beyond the permissible limits, without having obtained the sanction of the appropriate authorities.
He also raised the plea that the overdrafts, that were given by him, to the parties companycerned, were really due to oral orders given by the then Agent and the Superintendent, on telephone.
The respondent, again, squarely admitted, in his answers, that he has companymitted a blunder in granting advances, on his own responsibility, of about Rs.
But, inasmuch as he has stated, in his explanation, that on prior occasions also overdrafts have been allowed beyond the permissible limits, certain questions were put to him, in respect of those matters.
In the meanwhile, inasmuch as an industrial dispute was pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, the appellant had filed, an application, before the said Tribunal, on March 17, 1962, under s. 33 2 of the Act, seeking approval of the action taken against the respondent, on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer.
On the other hand, he again admitted his fault in having permitted, overdrafts, to the parties companycerned, without obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authorities after expressing regret for his companyduct.
4 and 6, standing in the names of Messrs. Commercial Bureau and Messers Evergreen Paper Syndicate and Messrs. Gokul Chand Radharam, respectively, overdrafts had been allowed, by the respondent, from time to time, without obtaining the sanction of the authorities companypetent to allow overdrafts.
of the authorities the said irregularities, that must have companye to his knowledge, and that the pass book of ledger No.
The respondent has categorically answered to the effect that he has understood the charge sheet and that he does number want to add anything more to the explanation that he has already submitted.
But, he again reiterated that he, in good faith and bona fide, was led to believe about the credit worthiness of the parties, who had long association, with the Bank.
Even in this representation, he has number, in any manner, attacked the enquiry proceedings, number the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
He also offered explanation, on the minor alle gations, to the effect that it was the duty of the ledger keeper to give the figures regarding the overdrafts and that he had number done any mis reporting to the higher authorities.
He again admitted that this act of permitting the parties companycerned to overdraw, in excess of their limits, without reference to the sanctioning authorities, amounted to negligence, but his companyduct was perfectly bona fide and honest.
Finally he made a plea that he had been serving the institution for over 20 years without any blemish, and the unfortunate omission, done by him, in the matter of number taking the sanction of the higher authorities, might be excused, accepting his expression of regret, The inquiry proceedings companyducted by the Agent, who was the Inquiry Officer , produced before the Labour Court, shows that the respondent was examined in the first instance.
In this reply also, he admitted that, in the companyrse of discharge of his routine duties and responsibilities, he had allowed the parties, mentioned in the charge sheet, to overdraw, in excess of their credits, without reference to the higher authorities, and that it was a blunder on his part which he should number have companymitted.
He also admitted that it was a blunder on his part and that he should number have done so.
He also stated that the Bank had number been put to any financial loss because of his having granted the overdrafts but, he again admitted his negligence, in number strictly abiding by the Banks rules, when he made the overdrafts.
At the companyclusion of the recording of the evidence, it is seen that the respondent finally made an appeal to the Enquiring Officer to companysider his case sympathetically, at the same time admitting his acts of omission, in the discharge of his duties.
He also stated, regarding the other minor allegations, that it was number his duty to report about the debit balances, which was the function of the ledger keeper, and that he was number also responsible for the loss of the pass book, of ledger No.
The respondent sent a reply, dated March 17, 1961, wherein he has admitted that, in the companyrse of discharge of his routine duties and responsibilities, in good faith and honestly, he had granted overdrafts to the parties referred to, by the Bank, temporarily, in excess of their credits or limits, without reference to the higher authorities.
This answer must have reference to the explanation, furnished by him, on June 20, 1961, in answer to the charge sheet, wherein he has admitted his mistake in sanctioning the overdrafts, to the parties companycerned, with out obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authorities.
He offered an explanation to, the effect that he was led to believe in the credit worthiness of the individuals, because of their long association with the Bank and also because of the fact that, on prior occassions, overdrafts had been granted to them, in excess of permissible limits.
C. Mathur, for the appellant.
did number bring to the numberice.
In this companynection, the Enquiry Officer has referred to the fact that these allegations have been admitted by the respondent.
The Managing Director, by his companymunication, dated September 17, 1962, rejected the representation made by the respondent, and declined to reinstate him in the Banks service.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He also emphasized, here again, that the Bank had number been put to any financial loss, because of his companyduct.
The main allegations were that, in respect of ledger accounts Nos.
The main charges related to the overdrafts, paid by the respondent, in ledger Nos.
After eliciting answers regarding the duration of his employment, in the institution, and as to the nature of the work he was discharging, he was asked about the charge sheet served on him, as well as the explanation, furnished by him.
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent.
He also raised the plea that he was number allowed to represent his case, through the Union, before the Enquiry Officer, number was he allowed to cross examine the persons making allegations against him.
He has also expressed his gratitude for the patient hearing that has been given to him during the inquiry.
He also stated that the Bank had number suffered any financial loss, because of his companyduct.
440 of 1966.
L.P. 123 of 1962.
The Bank also informed the respondent that he would, be given a further opportunity to explain his companyduct, in relation to those matters, and defend himself in the enquiry which would be held by the Agent of the Bank, on June 20, 1961, at 3.30 p.m. The respondent again sent a reply, dated July 11, 1961, to the charge sheet served on him.
By a further companymunication, dated March 13/14, 1961, the respondent was required to offer his explanation, in respect of four allegations made in the said companymunication.
The appellant Bank was number satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent, and companymunicated a charge sheet, on June 3, 1961.
He was also informed that the charges against him would be companymunicated, in due companyrse.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the appellant Bank, is directed against the order, dated May 13, 1964, of the Central Labour Court, Dhanbad, rejecting an application, filed by the Bank, under s. 33 2 b , of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act XIV of 1947 hereinafter called the Act , and declining to grant approval of the action taken, by the Bank, by way of discharging the respondent workman, from the Banks services.
472.70 being the wages for one month, viz.,
In view of certain serious irregularities, numbericed by the Bank, in respect of the work of the respondent in the Current Accounts Department and, in particular, in current account ledgers Nos.
The Enquiry Officer was of the view that the offence companymitted by the respondent, of which he had, been found guilty, was very serious which merited dismissal but, in view of the long number of years of service put in by the respondent and as numberloss has resulted to the Bank itself, he held that the respondent should be discharged from service.
This application was transferred to the Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad, on April 18, 1962.
4 and 6, by order dated March 8, 1961, the respondent was suspended, with immediate effect.
The respondent was, at the material time, the Assistant Ac companyntant, at the main Office of the Bank, at Calcutta.
R. Gokhale, C. A.,Chopra, P. C. Bhartari, land 0.
He, however, added that his companyduct had always been guided by good faith and honesty.
The respondent, who had a right to file an appeal, against this order of discharge, based upon the finding of the Enquiry Officer, does number appear to have had recourse to any appeal, but, on the other hand, filed a representation, dated July 11, 1962, before the Managing Director of the appellant Bank.
He wound up his explanation by stating that his companyduct, in making the overdrafts, without obtaining the sanction of the higher authorities,, was an omission which had been, unfortunately, companymitted by him, and he expresed regret for the same and requested the management to excuse him, accepting his explanation.
