High Court · 2025

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETTTIO N NOI 36160 oF 2016 Between: Hyderabad, Secbad Zol'r'om""l eegi'rmpet' Hyderabad' l.TheAssistantGeneralManager,(DiSCiplina.ryAuthority),State 2 r h e D e p utv- c s{,X o,Y %X%i b-Iff HJ6l,?" otl'l'"r,il'J); oi'i'" n HYderabad, Secund€ " Bank of Bank of .....PETITIONERS AND ' il X $; g:3YisX'i?& i'S5'3"i'K :JJ'd.,fi ;?:?:S##d 2. The Presiding Officer' Central Government lndustrial Tribunal - cum - Labour rrir-z' tvtano'anjan complex' 8/o P I ot N o 5 4' court. covt. ot lndra, t\tl J Road' Hyderabad' 'r'lYIiti'^l "Y[Li"'i' ""'RES'.NDENTS PetitionUnderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ' order or a direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for all the relevant records and quash the Award dt.21 .4.2|16passed by 2nd respondent in lndustrial Dispute L'C'No 91/2007' I.A.NO:1 O F 2016 WPMP,NO :44566 OF 2016) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to suspendtheoperationoftheAwarddl.2l.4.2016andpassedinlndustrialDispute : L C'No 91/2007 by the 2nd respondent herein pending disposar of the above writ petition I.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPM P. NO: 4176I OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant further time for compry the orders dated 19.7.2017 passed in wp.N/p.No. 44566 of 20'16 in WP.No.36160 of 2016 of this Hon,ble Court. l.A.NO:'l OF 2024 Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to set-a- side the order dt 01-08-2024 in wp No.36160/2016 and restore the same to fire. Counsel for the petitioners : SRI V.U.S.S.R.ANJANEyULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS 9:yl-.:_]I.J the Respondent No.2 : SRt GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 36160 oF 2016 ORDER: The case of petitioner is that the l"t respondent while working as Data Entry Computer Operator NGRI trxtension Counter, Habsiguda Branch' disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for committing hnancial irregularities and charge sheet dated Hyderabad, (DtrCO) at lT.g.2OO3wasissuedConsequently'hewaskeptunder suspension. Il is stated that a complaint in this regard was also given to Uppal Police Station uide FIR No' 158 of 2O03 for the offences under Sections 42O and 4Og IPC'' thereafter' he was acquitled in criminal case on benefrt of doubt' Since the charges are of serious financial irregularities' the disciplinary authority 1"t respondent passed a dismissal order against which the confirmed the preferred Appeal and Lhe Appellate Authority same, thus Petitroner stood dismissed from bank service treating the suspension period as 'off duq" as per Regulations' The l"t respondent raised L'C'No'91 of 2007 before the2odrespondentwhereinthel"trespondentcounseilrleda memo stating not to chailenge the validily of the departmental I I I I I I i h h l enquiry conducted by the respondent/ management and as such the matter was heard under Section 1 1(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 7947 (for short, .the Act,) on the punishmen[ and the acLion of the management rvas justifiecl under the clrcumstances referred to above. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter, went into the issue of inquiry which was not challenged observing that the 1"r respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine as the enquiry was ex parte afid he had not Iead any evidence in enquiry before the Tribunal or during Lhe inquiry anrl on imaginary contcntions that entrics might have bcen incorporated by somebod1r's permission, passecl Au,ard allowing thc Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal also observed that the 1sL rcsDondent had not cross examined the managemcnt rl itness and on such wrong assumption of lau, holds that without fault of 1.t respondent he has been given punishmen[ of dismissal from service which is contrary to the scopc of Section I 1(A) of iD Act, as that provision is limited only w,ith regard to legality and gravity of punishment and passed Award uide order dated 21.04.2016, impugned in this Writ petition, rn favour of the lst respondent. According to petitioners, the sard order is perverse and contrary to law and without jurisdiction and J beyond the scope of lnquiry contemplated under Section 11 (A) of the Act. It is contended that the 1't respondent stood ex parte and did not utilize the opporlunity and the enquiry is not challenged before the Tribunal by filing a memo' in spite of the same perverse reason the award is passed without any evidence on record. The action of the 2.'d respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of the provisions of ID Act' By order dated 19 'O7 '20 17' stay of impugned Award 2. was granted sub1ect to petitioner bank depositing 25o% of the backr,l'ages within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and on such deposit' the lst respondent was permitted to withdraw the same' The I't respondent hled counter stating that C'C No 3. 30 of 2O05 registered in connection with FIR No' 158 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC ended in acquittal in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and the Revision Petition hled by the Bank was also dismissed by this Court ln the meanwhile' by conducting ex- parte errqtriry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 23.OL.2OO4. In L D'L C No' 91 of 2007 raised bv him' the Tribunal found that the action of the management is not { I I justified, hou'ever, refused to grant the reliel of reinstatement since he I'rad already reached the age of superannuation. Hence, grantecl the relief of payment oi 50% of the back vrages along nith attendant benehts, setting aside the order of dismissal. It is argued that the Tribunal has drau.n conclusions in exercise of its powers under SecLion 11A of the Act and thc same is based on appreciation of evidence. Though thc domesric cnquiry rvas hcld to be valid by the.lnbunal. it can Iook into Lhe evidence in order to satisfy itself regarding the justihcatior-r in imposing the punishment on the workman. It is repeatedly held by the Apex court that such an cxercise of power by r he Tribunal should r-rot be interfercd r.r.ith by this Court in the course of judicial review unless it is lbund that the Award is pcnrerse and not based on thc material on record. Hence, there are no circumsLances to interfcre with the Award and the Writ Petition is devoid of rnerits. It is also stated, on a conservative cerlculation, the 1"t respondcnt would be entitled for Rs.26 lakhs tou,ards SOo/c: of the back wages as awarded by the Tribunal. There are no f' I h h 5 circumstances to suspend the Award and the W P M P is liable to be dismissed' Heard learned counscl for petitioners Bank 4. Sri V.U.S.S-R. Anjaneyulu He reiied on the judgments of this Court in J. 5rcrt'tsoft a' The Commissioner of Police' Rcrchakonda(W P'No 24577 of 2022\ ' of the Hon'ble Supreme Cotrrf in K.rrn(4t.Ika Pouer Transmission Corporation Limited u. C' Ncrgcrrrriut ' Genetal Secretdry' South Indian cas,leto Factories workers tJnion u' Managing Director' Kerala Stcrte Ccrsrteu Deaelopment CorPord'rtion Ltd'2 and Deputg Inspector Genetal oj Police u' S' So:muthirams aod contends that acquittat by criminal Court does not preclude departmental enquiry against delinquent officer since both the proce edings are entirely differenl' operate in difiercr-rt tields and have different objectives Hence' the Tribunal is not right in passing the imPugned Award' On the other hand' learned counsel for the l"t 5. respondent Sri Vedula Srinivas submits that when departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are based -on ' (20 t) 1o scc 367 ' 2006(3) LLN 761 .'-' (zotl) I scc 598 t It f o a identical anci similar set of facts and evidence, and criminal Court honourably acquitted the employee, findings to the contrary recorded in departmer-rtal proceedings are unlhir and oppressive. He relied in support of his conLentron the judgments of the Hon,ble Apex Court in G.M. Tank o. State of Gujarat<. ln Workmen u, Firestone Tgre and Rubber Co.s, the Hon'blt: Supreme Court dealt vvith interpreLaLion of Section 11 A and carwecl out certain circumstances, wherc thc Tribunal can interfere rvith the findings oi the Enquiry. Citing the sarcl judgment, rhe learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ir_r Lhis case is righ t in passing the Award under challenge, hence, the same does not need any interference.

6. A perusal of the Award impugned makes it clear that the 1"t respondent filed Memo dated 23.11.201 I stating not to challenge the vatidity of the departmental enqurry. conducted by the man:Lgemcnt, hence, the Tribunal held the departmcntal enqulry as lrgal and valid

7. On consideration of the rival contenLions, the Tribunal observed that the 1"t respondent was a mere DECO ' atR z006 sc z l:rg 'ltot:1 rsccsr:; h h t, t '7 and every entry made by him had to be checked not only by the Head of the Extension Counter but also by the Chief Manager of made entrtes the Bank. The allegation of the bank that he be accePted. withoul vouchers or the instructions cannot Moreover the lst respondent being a DECO cannot even enter data pertaining to ffansactions of amount more than Rs. 10,000/ - and entries beyond the said amount had to be compulsorily authorized on the computer by the supcrvising officer. So, when the lst respondent made entries' somebody in such circumstances' might have given permission; therefore ' how he was solely responsible for the enlries made in respect of hugeamountsofmoney?.So,ifanymisappropriationistherein the account of the bank' it has been done with the collusion of other employees and a single man like the lst respondent cannot do it Furthermore' the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his judgment, while dealing with the evidence ol P'W 4' so- called e mployee of the bank' observed that 'without the permisston or cooperation of whatsoever of the Manager of the bank, the accused (lst respondent) who was a DECO cannot fraudulently transfer any amount from one account to other' ThecriminalCourthadalreadyheldthatthereisnoCogent, r( q Ir 8 ', satisfactory and convincing evidence that the 1sr respondent fraudulently misappropriated the amount from the accounts of the bank. The Tribunal further hel<l that during the time ol departmental enquiry, as the l sr respondent was booked in a criminal case, he could not get any chance to cross_examir.re the management r.r,itnesses. If the management witness would have bcen cross examined, the rcal truth could have been brought into light. Only basing on the ex porte inquiry, the l "r respondent u,as held guilty of the charge of misconduct. rn fact, for no fault of l,rim, hc was disrlissed from servrce. Thus, in such circumstances, the action taken by the management against the 1sr respondent is not legal and justified, as such, he is eligible to be re instated into service. Since, the 1sr respondent had already attained the ags of superannuation, the question of reinstatement does not arise. Hence, he was directed to be paid subsistence allowance in respect oi the period of suspension, all attendanl benellts and 5oyn of back r,r,ages. 8 Norv thc main argument of learnecl Standing Counsel for petitioner bank is that since the 1st respondent filed the Memo stating not to chailenge the vatidity of the departmental enquiry, the matter q.as heard under Section 11_A h I' I I o In view of the same' the Tribunal of the Act on the Punishment is wrong rn making observatlons' stated suPra, which are 1 1-A. According to learned contrary lo the scoPe of Sectron counsel, Section i 1-A is limited only with regard lo tegality and gravitY oi Punishment' In this connection' it is pertinent to see the scope g. and ambit of the said provision lt reads thus: "l lA Powers of Labour courts' Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief rn case of discharge or <lismissal o[ \&orkmen: where an industriar dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a rt-orkman has been referred to a Labour Court' Tribllnal or National 'lribunal tor adjudication and' in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court' Tribunal or National Tribunal' as the case may be is satisfied that the order of discharge or <lismissal was not justified, it may' by its award' set aside the order of discharge or dismissaL and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions' if arr1,, as it thinks fit, or give SuCh other relief to the u,orkman including the award of any lesser punishmcnt in lieu of discharge or drsmissal as the circumstances of the case may require' ProvidedthatinanyproceedingunderthisSection,the Labour Court' Tribunal ot N^t'onal Tribunal' as the case may be' shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter'' Having considered the respective lO. perused the record' it may be noted that the 1"t respondent- was set ex panlein the departmental proceedings and workman contentions and It t{ t '{ h h I i i I i , I I I h t0 : the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on him. On challenging the same before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held the depanmental er.rquiry as legal and valid, thcreby there was no improl:riet-y or illegality in thc act of thc clepartmcnl in setting the u.orkman ex parte.l t may be noLed that though the workman filed a Mcmo to not dispute the disciplinary proceedings, the samc cloes not bar the .lribunal appreciating the proceedings to assess the ir.eigh t of e'idence vis-d-vis gravitl, of the punishment, exercising jurisdiction under Sectjon I I A of the Act. In the instant c:rse , the reasoning gtven whilc ex:rmining Lhe justifiability or otherwise of the punishment of dismissal was that the alleged trregularities could not have bcen committed by the for the authority of thc workman in appror.rng financial transaction was limited to Rs.1O,OOO/_ and any amount o\/er and above that goes through a hierarchy of olficials. While noting similar lacunae in the discrplinary authority assessment of proceedings and awarding dismissal punishment, the Tribunal held that the punishment of dismissal was illegal and accordingly set aside the same, and granted subsistence allowance for the perrod from 2g.O3.2003 till he lr,as dismissed 'E/ workman, financial 1i vide order dated' 23 f3'2004' apart from all attendant bene[rts and 50yo back wages, while further observing that the -:*:": cannot be reinstated as he attained the age of superannuatron' In view of the same' the grounds taken by pelitioner-Bank challenge the impugned Ota"' of the Tribunal that the Tribunal be sustained The Writ Petition is therefore' liable to be 1S accordinglY, dismissed No the evidence and made oLrservadons' had re-appreciated dismissed cannot The Writ Petttton 1i. costs.

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applicattons' any sha1l stand closed' //TRUE COPY// isiitiI',.HftEI?J+AXX SECTION OFFTCER To 3H 33 [ 3RlXX;?3,ft0]1ft\""#IH: 3gb"'l+lit"J"8loo o'*'*l- g:. [?t ttf;gR t$,t"N31 Advocate ropu cr Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 SA BS W ,{ I ;rn\ a\ rrlo 206 :,) ,/. .,,:,:\., /,,.\ ' :1. 25 : t' ..' ,2 ''.- Or.. - \:--' ', 1l1. i I I I I I I j I i I I I / i I I j I I I I , H,GH COURT DATED:29 t}ttZOZs ORDER WP.No.36160 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WIHOUT COSTS. (o 11, b 1fr