In that letter, addressed to the Reserve Bank of India.
The inquiry companymenced on December 23, 1960 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on February 2, 1961 holding R. K. Jain guilty of the charges levelled against him.
All these matters have caused companysiderable prejudice in placing his defence before Inquiry Officer.
On receipt of the report, the Superintendent of the Ambala City Branch of the appellant by his letter dated March 4, 1963 intimated R. K. Jain that theInquiry Officer D. Sharma has found him guilty of the charges framed against him.
R. K. Jain, under the guise of trying to unstitch the packet, tore off the label bearing his initials in spite of the protest made by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India.
The Appellate Authority, however, rejected the appeal on January 18, 1964.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, H. L. Anand, Ashok Grover and K. B. Mehta, for the appellant K. Ramamurthi, R. A. Gupta and K. B. Rohatgi, for respondent No.
But later on the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India detected the shortage and this deficiency was made up by the staff of the Reserve Bank.
The Inquiry Officer rejected the request of R. K. Jain regarding three of those witnesses on the ground that their evidence will number be useful for the inquiry.
Ambala City Branch of the appellant, addressed a letter dated August 13 , 1960 to R. K. Jain regarding the reports made by the Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India and the Superintendent Incharge of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, regarding the shortage of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the State Bank of India, is against the award dated April 7, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, setting aside the order of the appellant, discharging the services of the first respondent and directing his reinstatement with full back wages.
The In quiry Officer B. D. Sharma firmly informed the workman that the inquiry will proceed as scheduled on June 14, 1961.
The workman also criticised the manner in which the inquiry proceedings were companyducted by B. D. Sharma.
on the same charges on June 14, 1961 that R. K. Jain knew, for the first time that a fresh inquiry is proposed to be companyducted by the management.
In the said reply he alleged that the first inquiry by B. P. Tiwari was companyducted companytrary to all principles of natural justice.
Apart from pleading all these facts, he alleged that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were opposed to the evidence onrecord.
The first respondent joined the service of the appellant on June 13, 1955 as a Money Tester and was working in that capacity at the Ambala City Branch in July, 1960.
On these grounds the Association made a request to cancel the second inquiry proposed to be held.
After finding that all attempts to stop the second inquiry have proved futile, the workman decided to participate in the same under, protest.
But this plea was number accepted by the lnquiry Officer and the proceedings were companyducted without those witnesses being examined on behalf of R. K. Jain.
Ludhiana, on 26th July, 1960, under your supervision, 10 pieces of Rs.
It may be mentioned that there is numberorder of the appellant on record, in and by which they directed a de numbero inquiry by D. Sharma.
In particular hp, referred to the fact that his request to summon two witnesses Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, who were in the employ of the appellant was arbitrarily rejected by the Inquiry Officer.
In particular, the workman made a grievance that he was denied the opportunity to summon Pooran Singh, Cashier at Jullundur Branch and Sanjhi Ram, Cashier at Amritsar Branch of the appellant Bank, who had appeared as his witnesses in the inquiry companyducted by B. P. Tiwari.
This resulted in the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of Indias Staff Association sending a letter on December 24, 1960 to B. P. Tiwari pointing out that in the inquiry that was being companyducted by him, the employees of the Reserve Bank of India, at whose, instance the charges had been framed against R. K. Jain, did number permit the delinquent to put them any question in cross ,examination.
Thefindings are by and large based upon the evidence of the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, who in the previous inquiry had refused to be cross examined.
Again on June 14, 1961 the Deputy General Secretary of the Staff Association sent a companymunication to the Inquiry Officer that the Head Office has number informed R. K. Jain that a fresh inquiry is proposed to be companyducted and that in fact even the details of the inquiry relating to the one companyducted by P. Tiwari have number been furnished to him.
The appellant Bank, in its written statement admitted that during the inquiry companyducted by B. P. Tiwari the employees of the Reserve Bank at Ludhiana, who gave evidence did number allow themselves to be cross examined by the representative of R. K. Jain and, therefore, the said inquiry was number proper.
The companycerned staff of the Reserve Bank, who had made up the deficiency, was number well disposed towards him as he declined to accede to their request to reimburse, them in the sum of Rs.
It was only when the companymunication dated May 27, 1961 was received from B. D. Sharma regarding the inquiry to be companyducted by him.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated April 7, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh in Reference No.
The Association has been making several inquiries from the Head Office regarding the matter, but the only reply that was received by it was that the matter was receiving the attention of the Head Office.
It appears that the new Inquiry Officer B. D. Sharma sent a companymunication dated May 27, 1961 to R. K. Jain that he will be companyducting another inquiry against him on the charges originally framed and that the inquiry is fixed for June 14, 1961.
Therefore, the staff of the Reserve Bank in the companycerned section has made a false allegation that the slip was deliberately torn off by the first respondent.
He made a grievance that his request to have certain witnesses summoned for being cross examined on his behalf was arbitrarily rejected by the Inquiry Officer.
R. K. Jain was desired to show cause within a week why the proposed punishment should number be imposed.
This fact was explained to the officer of the Reserve Bank of India.
On receipt of this companymunication the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of India Staff Association sent a reply on June 10, 1961 to D. D. Sharma stating that the Association was astonished about the proposal to have a second inquiry.
It is, therefore, obvious that you tried to destroy the label in order to absolve yourself of the responsibility for the shortage in question.
The Tribunal further found that the workman did number want the second inquiry.
Regarding the two others, the Inquiry Officer informed R. K. Jain that the latter should arrange for producing those witnesses at the inquiry at his expenses.
K. Jain sent his explanation to the charges by his letter dated October 18, 1960.
B. D. Sharma sent his report to the Head Office on August 23, 1962.
The first respondent sent a reply on March 28, 1963 pleadinginnocence.
R. K. Jain stated that while companynt ing the packet companytaining the Rs.
Later on.,
R. K. Jain pleaded that those witnesses were that he has already incurred companysiderable expense in that regard.
On July 26, 1960, he was deputed to supervise the remittance of unissuable numberes of Rs.
87,48,000/ from the Ambala City Branch to the Note Cancellation and Verification Sections of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana for destruction.
a verbal inquiry was made by the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India and R. K. Jain admitted the shortage by his letter dated July 29, 1960.
The first respondent filed an appeal on November 8, 1963 before the Deputy Secretary and Treasurer of the appellant Bank at New Delhi.
He also made a request that in case the two Cashiers Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram are number summoned on his behalf their evidence given in the inquiry held by B. P. Tiwari, ,which was already on record, may be treated as their evidence in the present proceedings.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The inquiry was quite companytrary to the Procedure to be adopted in disciplinary action taken in respect of Bank employees.
The torn label was picked up and as it companytained the initials of R. K. Jain, the officials of the Reserve Bank of India kept the torn pieces intact.
According to the appellant the procedure adopted for such purpose was the currency numberes intended to be carried for destruction to the companycerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, are examined, companynted and then tied in bundles with a label or slip attached to each packet companytaining the particulars including the initials of the examining officer Each packet is then recounted by the Money Tester and the latter puts his initial on the label or slip in token of his having done the recounting, the idea being, that if any shortage is discovered subsequently, the person whose initials are found on the label or slip can be made liable to account for the deficiency, and be asked to make good the same.
In the written statement filed by the workman, after setting out the, various facts mentioned earlier, it was averred that the Reserve Bank employees who appeared before B. P. Tiwari declined to be cross examined by the workman and that the second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was companyducted in spite of protests made by the workman.
10/ numberes were found short in one packet the packet in question was recounted by you at the Branch.
The second inquiry was being held due to numberfault of his and therefore he regretted his inability to have them summoned at his expense.
Those persons were 1 Shri B. P. Tewari, 2 Shri J. S. Bhatnagar, 3 Shri K. C. Mehra, Agent, Ambala City, 4 Shri Sanjhi Ram, Cashier, Amritsar, and 5 Shri Puran Singh, Cashier, Jullundur.
100/ in the packet companytaining Rs.
The Bank finally pleaded that the action taken against R. K. Jain was perfectly justified and it was in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Sastry Award.
Those officers surprisingly refused to be cross examined by the first respondent during that inquiry.
The inquiry proceedings were companyducted by B. D. Sharma between June 14, 1961 and July 12, 1962.
It is stated by the appellant that when the report of B. P. Tiwari was companysidered, the grievance made on behalf of R. K. Jain in the letter dated December 24, 1960 was taken into account and it was decided that the inquiry companyducted by D. Tiwari, was number a proper one and hence a de numbero inquiry was directed to be done by another Officer B. D. Sharma.
He was further directed to submit his explanation within 10 days of the receipt of the charge sheet.
During the companyrse of the companyrespondence the, workman even made a request that the Reserve Bank officers have already given evidence in the previous inquiry and that the present inquiry may be companyfined only to their cross examination and the inquiry companytinued from that stage.
Notwithstanding the fact that a companyy of this letter was sent to the Secretary and Treasurer of the appellant Bank at New Delhi, numberfurther information was given by the management to the workman companycerned.
The findings recorded by B. D. Sharma were also attacked as being opposed to the evidence on record.
10/ numberes in which a shortage of Rs.
100/ was found, the slip was torn by him inadvertently and that he repasted the slip, after having companyfirmed the mutilation as desired by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India.
R. K. Jain has further stated that he had put in nearly five years service and had a clean record and that the allegations made against him were false and frivolous.
The Bank supported the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
Not satisfied with the explanation given by R. K. Jain, the appellant placed him under suspension with effect from September 6, 1960 pending an inquiry, which had been ordered against his companyduct.
He further alleged that the inquiry companyducted by B. D. Sharma was in voilation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was denied an opportunity of having certain witnesses summoned, who were in the employ of the appellant, to give evidence.
Accordingly, when the money was taken by the first respondent on July 26, 1.960 and delivered to the Note Cancellation and Verification Section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, officials therein numbered a shortage of Rs.
The Bank further averred that full opportunity was given to the workman to place his defence and facilities were provided for arranging to get any witnesses that he wanted to produce before the Inquiry Officer.
Such a deficiency was numbered in the packet to which was tacked the label bearing the initials of R, K. Jain.
4C of 1966.
The letter proceeds to state that B. P. Tiwari companyducted an inquiry about six months back and that though a report appears to have been sent by him to the Head Office, numbercopy of such a report had been furnished to R. K. Jain.
It was alleged that the statements given by those officers of the Reserve Bank of India were one sided and R. K. Jain and his representative had to sit as spectators during the inquiry.
10/denomination numberes.
He made a request to the Inquiry Officer to summon five witnesses who are employees of the appellant Bank.
Notwithstanding this grievance made on behalf of the first respondent that the inquiry was opposed to all principles of natural justice and was number a proper inqairy, .nothing seems to have been done, by the appellant, as will be seen from the fact that the inquiry proceeded and the report, finding R. K. Jain guilty, was sent by B. P. Tiwari, so late as February 2, 1961.
992 of 1967.
The shortage was pointed out to R. K. Jain by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India, and the packet was handed back to the former to enable him to satisfy himself regarding the shortage.
He had incurred a lot of expense in that regard and the first inquiry was scraped for numberfault of his and the second inquiry was ordered by the management of their own accord.
The Superintendent of the appellant branch at Ambala, by his ,order dated October 1, 1963 discharged R. K. Jain from the service of the Bank without numberice, on the ground that his explanation companytained in his letter dated March 28, 1963 was unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted.
It was because of the fact that the workman did number have a fair and proper inquiry companyducted against him, the second inquiry was directed to be companyducted by B. D. Sharma.
The Inquiry Officer was requested to arrange to summon five persons for cross examination by the workman.
After referring to the fact that the packet was given to him for recounting, as the officers asked him to hurry up the matter and to return the packet soon, and as there was a shortage of Rs.
He was also informed that he, would be given a hearing before final orders are passed, if he so desired. ,
The Bank further averred that the Agents at the Jullundur and Amritsar Branches, were permitted to release Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, if they were willing to give evidence at Ambala at their expense on behalf of R. K. Jain.
A companyy of this companymunication was also sent to the Secretary and Treasurer of the appellant Bank at New Delhi requesting him to look into the matter and stop the fresh inquiry proposed to be companyducted by B. D. Sharma on June 14, 1961.
After the second inquiry was companymenced by B. D. Sharma, the Staff Association addressed a letter to the Inquiry Officer on June 15, 1961.
On June 14, 1961, several letters Passed between the Staff Association and the Inquiry Officer.
it was pleaded that the workman never wanted the second inquiry.
The Central Government by its order dated September 19, 1966 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh the following dispute Whether the management of the State Bank of India was justified in discharging from service Shri R. K. Jain, Money Tester at Ambala City Branch, with effect from 1st October, 1963 if number, to what relief is the employee entitled ?
On August 16, 1960, the first respondent stated that the packet companytaining soiled numberes was handled by several persons and companynted more than once both in the Branch at Ambala as well as in the companycerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana.
That when you were given the aforesaid packet for satisfying yourself regarding the shortage, you tried to unstitch it and in the process tore off the label stitched on the packet despite instructions number to do so.
On the label being examined by the Superintendent in Charge of the Reserve Banks Note Cancellation Section it was revealed that the label bore your signature in token of your having companynted the packet in question.
The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated April 7, 1967, held that R. K. Jain was number afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in his defence during the inquiry companyducted by B. D. Sharma and that the management was number justified in terminating his services, on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer.
These requests were also rejected by he Inquiry Officer.
Notwithstanding the repeated requests made by the Staff Association as to what has happened regarding the inquiry companyducted by B. P. Tiwari, the management except saying that the matter is under companysideration did number furnish any information about their proposal to companyduct a second inquiry.
But the Inquiry Officer, by his letter dated June 13, 1961 informed R. K. Jain that the inquiry will be held on June 14, 1961 as already intimated.
By letter dated October 10, 1960, R. Jain was required to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him on the following charges That during the companyrse of examination of Ambala City Branch remittance of number issuable numberes sent to the Note Cancellation and Verification Section of the Reserve Bank of India.
100/ , he got companyfused and while handling the packet the companyering slip tore off accidentally.
In the said report the Inquiry Officer found that R. K. Jain was responsible for the shortage of the currency numberes and that he deliberately tore off the slip bearing his initials in the packet where the deficiency was numbered and this was done with the intention of destroying evidence of his having recounted the packet.
it is number necessary for us to advert to the findings in this report as a fresh inquiry was companyducted later.
Immediately on June 10, 1961 the Staff Association wrote a letter of protest to the Inquiry Officer expressing surprise at the proposed second inquiry and requesting him to stop the same.
10/ which they had to make good due to their negligence.
The second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was also companyducted in voilation of the principles of natural justice and that he was number Oven a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
The Staff Association further protested very strongly against the Banks action in holding a fresh inquiry and that it was unjustified and amounted to an unfair labour practice.
He further alleged tbat his representative was number permitted to put the necessary questions to the officers of the Reserve Bank, who gave evidence before the Inquiry Officer.
The Association further charged the management that they were somehow or the other intent on finding R. K. Jain guilty of some charge or other and to punish him.
It was further stated that the appellant has companye to the decision that R. K. Jain should be discharged from service of the Bank without numberice in terms of paragraph 521 10 c of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award.
The sum and substance of the grievance of R. K. Jain, was that the inquiry companyducted by B. D. Sharma was companytrary to all principles of natural justice and that he was number given a fair opportunity for placing his defence before the Inquiry Officer and the whole proceedings were number companyducted in a judicial manner.
He further stated that he did number destroy the label deliberately to avoid any liability.
The first respondent has further stated that on the morning of July 26, 1960, ten numberes of rupee one denomination were found short in a packet which was verified and found companyrect by the staff of the Reserve Bank of India.
