Before the Tribunal, the appellant denied the charges, He inter alia, pleaded that as Kansal was number examined in the enquiry, there was numberlegal evidence before the inquiry officer for a finding that he was guilty.
1,500.
The findings of the Enquiry officer were that The appellant had fraudulently altered the amount in the letter of authority given to him by Kansal, withdrew Rs.
If number to what relief is he entitled ?
The High Court held that the charges against the appellant had been established and quashed the award of the Tribunal.
Upon companysideration of the matter, I have tentatively companye to the decision that your misconduct be companydoned and you be merely discharged of in terms of paragraphs 521 5 e of the Sastry Award read with para graph 18.28 of the Desai Award and paragraph 1.1 of the Agreement dated the 31st March 1967 entered into between the Bank and the State Bank of India Staff Federation.
The respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award of the Tribunal.
On receipt of the Pass Book from the companynter clerk, Kansal companyplained to Wadhera who was the Ledger keeper, that on February 8, 1971, he had withdrawn only Rs.
500 to the pass book holder, and that he subsequently, on June 24, 1971, deposited Rs 250 in the account of Kansal to liquidate a part or the amount misappropriated by him.
1,500.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 18th October, 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
Before the Enquiry officer, the respondent examined the following witnesses Gupta Witness 1 , Wadhera, the Ledger Keeper Witness 2 , Mahesh Chander who was incharge of Savings Bank account on 8.2.1971 Witness 3 , M. Ramzan, Agent of the Bank Witness 4 , Sarkar Witness 5 , and Bhardwaj Witness 6 .
Eventually on September 18, 1972, a memorandum of charges was served on the appellant by the respondent stating, inter alia that in the letter of authority, the appellant altered in his own handwriting with different ink the amount of Rs.
The matter was then brought to the numberice of M. Ramzan, the Agent of the State Bank, before whom also Kansal is said to have repeated his companyplaint.
On a perusal of the evidence recorded by the Enquiry officer, the Tribunal held that on the evidence before it, the appellant companyld number be held guilty as, according to it, in the absence of the evidence of Kansal, the evidence recorded was hearsay, with the result that it directed reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages from 22nd December, 1973.
Shri Chadha after perusing the representation of the appellant and hearing him in person, recommended that the proposed punishment should number be imposed upon the appellant, on the grounds that Kansal had number been examined as a witness and that there had been numberwritten companyplaint against the appellant.
He did number support the case of the respondent.
495 of 1979.
The appellant then submitted a representation to Shri B. Chadha, the Regional Manager of the State Bank of India on June 15, 1973.
The respondent, however, did number accept the recommendation, and, by its memorandum of December 7, 1973, discharged the appellant from service with effect from the close of the business on December 22, 1973.
The Tribunal framed the following two issues Whether a proper and valid domestic enquiry was held by the Bank and its effect ?
Before the Tribunal, the Management examined numberwitnesses but produced certain documents and relied on them.
1, 2, 4 and 5 depose that a verbal companyplaint was made by Kansal in their presence to the effect that he had authorised the appellant to withdraw Rs.
The other witnesses supported the case of the respondent.
Bhardwaj was a leader of the employees union of the respondent.
The appellant also did number adduce any evidence.
It is against this judgment of the High Court that the present appeal by special leave is directed.
500 to Rs.
To enable you to do so, I enclose companyies of the proceedings of the enquiry and findings of the Enquiry officer.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent on February 13, 1973.
You may ask for a hearing or if you so prefer show cause in writing within one week of receipt by you thereof.
1,500 and thus received Rs.
1,500 from Kansals account and paid Rs.
500 but a debit entry of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The disciplinary authority on receipt of the report of the Enquiry officer passed the following order material portion only Although, the charges against you are of a serious nature which would, in numbermal companyrse, warrant your dismissal from the service of the Bank, yet keeping in view your past record, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter.
The appellant then having raised an industrial dispute, the Central Government, by its order dated January 17, 1975, referred the following issue to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Delhi for adjudication Is the management of State Bank of India justified in discharging from service Shri J.D. Jain, Cashier of Meerut Branch, with effect from 22nd December, 1973?
Wadhera thereupon took Kansal to the the Supervisor, R.P. Gupta, before whom Kansal repeated his companyplaint.
1,000 in excess, passing only Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM J. This appeal by special leave is by the appellant, J.D. Jain.
The appellant replied to the charges.
500 only to Kansal and misappropriated Rs.
Is the management of State Bank of India justified in discharging from service Shri J.D. Jain, Cashier of Meerut Branch with effect from 22nd December, 1973 ?
If number to what relief is he entitled ?
The letter of authority showed that it was for withdrawal of Rs.
He denied the allegations.
On June 21, 1971, one Dishan Prakash Kansal Kansal for short who had a Savings Bank account with the said branch of the State Bank came to the Bank to receive 3 his Pass Book.
who was a workman and whose services have been terminated by the management of the State Bank of India hereinafter called the respondent .
R. Garg, U.R. Lalit and Randhir Jain for the Appellant.
C. Bhandare, S.A. Shroff, S.S. Shroff and Miss C.K Sachurita for Respondent No.
1292 of 1975.
Thereupon the respondent appointed one Rajendra Prasad as an Enquiry officer and a formal disciplinary enquiry was held against the appellant.
The material facts are these.
Necessary documents pertaining to the said withdrawal were then examined and it was found that Kansal had given a letter of authority which expression means, we are told, the withdrawal application form to the appellant on February 8, 1971 authorising him to withdraw the amount from his account.
Before, however, I take a final decision in the matter I would like to give you a hearing as to why the proposed punishment should number be imposed upon you.
500 which sum was paid to him, but the entries showed that Kansal had withdrawn Rs.
In an application for a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited.
Witnesses Nos.
The appellant was working as a cashier in the Meerut City Branch of the State Bank of India.
1,500 had been shown in the Pass Book.
