Writ Petition No. 24006 of 2014 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24006 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIAY BANKS) ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFI9CE, AT HYDERABAD AND A REGIONAL OFFICE, AT GULBARGA-585 101. REPRESENTED BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE, HO-GUM FOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-500 177. REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. (BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: SRI.SHARANAPPA HOSMANI S/O SRI. SAIBANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEAWRS, R/O OPP. CHIRANJEEVIL METHODIST SCHOOL, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 HYDERABAD ROAD, YADGIRI-585 201. (BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Legal Reasoning
SRI. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT IN CR. NO.128/2007, PASSED ON 31.12.2013 AT ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by M/s. State Bank of India [referred to as ‘the Bank’] calling in question the Award dated 31.12.2013 in C.R.No.128/2007 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and the Tribunal, by the impugned Award dated 31.12.2013, has allowed the Central Government’s Reference - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 under Sections 10(1)(d) and 10(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] setting aside the Bank's order compulsorily retiring the respondent, who was working as a Clerk-cum- Cashier with its Yadgiri Branch, holding that he shall be entitled for reinstatement, continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits that he would have received if he was not compulsorily retired. 2. This Court, on 25.06.2014 has stayed the operation of the Tribunal's order, but on 31.01.2015, the interim order is continued subject to compliance with Section 17B of the ID Act. The Bank has applied for modification of this order, and this application is rejected observing that if the Bank does not pay back wages, the interim order cannot be granted. It would flow from this that the Bank has paid the wages under Section 17B of the ID Act to the respondent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 This petition is dismissed for default on 21.06.2024 but is later restored on 02.12.2024 for final disposal. 3. The Bank has served the respondent with the Articles of Charge imputing that [a] he caused the impersonation of Smt. Mallamma W/o Bheemanna [in whose favour the Banker's cheque dated 14.05.1998 was drawn for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-], [b] he opened a Special Term Deposit for this amount for encashment on 14.05.1998, and [c] using an imposter, applied for demand loan and secured a loan of Rs.1,10,000/- as against the Special Term Deposit. 3.1 The Bank has served this Articles of Charge because of a complaint by Smt. Mallamma [the complainant]. Smt. Mallamma has filed a complaint alleging inter alia that she had handed over the Banker's cheque dated 14.05.1998 to Sri. Nepalji [another employee with the petitioners], who called her to come back to receive the loan as against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 deposit that had to be opened using the amount covered under the cheque. Sri. Nepalji asked her to come back the next day, but she could not meet him. However, Sri. Chandrashekar Naik [another employee with the petitioners], told her that she could get the amount only upon Sri. Nepalji returning from the leave. She accosted Sri. Nepalji in his house and learnt about she being cheated. 3.2 The Bank, simultaneously with the Departmental Proceedings, has begun penal proceedings in Crime No.68/1999 with the jurisdictional Police. The Bank, purportedly acting under the RBI directions, have paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant and the police have filed their C-Report on 20.03.2002 stating that (i) the imposter could not be traced despite visiting multiple places, (ii) none from the Bank except the respondent will be responsible for the impersonation and (iii) that the respondent was in custody until he was released - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 on bail. The Bank has held domestic enquiry resulting in the report against the respondent and the subsequent imposition of the compulsory retirement. 4. The Tribunal, while answering the Reference at the respondent's insistence on whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is justified, has firstly answered vide order dated 02.12.2010 on the fairness of the inquiry. Thereafter, the Tribunal has considered the question, whether the Inquiry Officer's finding that the charge against the respondent is proved, is perverse and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal in considering such question, has examined the transactions on 14.05.1998 and 28.09.1998 based on the evidence let in the Inquiry proceedings. 5. The Bank has examined the Managers working at the relevant time as also an Officer who had handed over the amount in cash as demand loan - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 as against the security of the Special Term Deposit. Sri. Padmanabh H. Math [the Officiating Manager] at the time of receipt of the Special Terms Deposit, is examined, and this witness has acknowledged that he has signed Ex.ME.3, which records that he has verified the thumb impression of the person who has received the Deposit which was opened in May 1998. 6. Sri. R.S. Kulkarni is the Officer, who has made over the cash in August 1998 as a Demand Loan against the security of Special Term Deposit, and he is examined as MW.4. This officer acknowledges that all the papers for the demand loan were filled in by either Sri. Nepalji or another and he has stated that he handed over the cash to the respondent in good faith because the respondent pointed out to the imposter who was sitting in the Branch and Smt. Mallamma was a resident of the same street as the respondent. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 7. Sri. T. P. Muthanna, the learned counsel for the Bank, submits that this Court must intervene with the Tribunal's findings because, though the jurisdictional Police have filed a 'C' Report on 20.03.2002 stating that they could not trace the imposter, the Investigation Officer’s opinion is categorical that it is the respondent who is guilty and as such, he is taken into custody. The learned counsel next submits that the Tribunal could not have attached any importance in the statement made by Smt. Mallamma in the complaint about her interactions with Sri. Nepalji because she, being illiterate, would have signed the complaint at the third person's instance. 8. Sri. P. S. Rajagopal, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent, is heard in the light of the material on record, the Tribunal’s appreciation thereof and the grounds urged by Sri. T. P. Muthanna. If the Bank has to sustain the charge - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 against the respondent, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, it must establish the respondent's role in en-cashing the Banker's cheque dated 14.05.1998 in opening the Special Term Deposit for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-; that the custody of this Special Term Deposit receipt continued with the respondent until 28.09.1998 when the documents were furnished allegedly through an imposter for demand loan. 9. Sri. Padmanabh H. Math, who was officiating as a Branch Manager on the relevant date, has admitted his signature in the relevant documents. These, undisputedly, show that the Short-Term Deposit Certificate was handed over to Smt. Mallamma and that he had certified the signature while the other documents were signed by Sri. Nepalji. If the Special Term Deposit Certificate was so handed over to Smt. Mallamma, there must be evidence of the Certificate coming into the hands - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 of the respondent and submission of that along with the papers for loan, but there is no such evidence. 10. Smt. Mallamma has stated in her complaint that she handed over the Banker's cheque dated 14.05.1998 [which is the source to open the Short-Term Deposit] to Sri. Nepalji who asked her to come back to collect the loan amount but evaded her for some time, and that she accosted him in his house and then verified that she was cheated. The contents of the complaint, along with the evidence of the manager as aforesaid, gains significance in the light of the evidence that is placed on record to show the respondent's culpability 11. The Police communication to the Branch Manager, as is found in his evidence, is that the complaint by Smt. Mallamma is registered in Crime No.68/1999, that they have made efforts to trace the imposter but unsuccessfully and that only the respondent is responsible for the commission of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 crime and none from the Bank. It is trite that the police version cannot overwhelm the material brought on record in the inquiry proceedings, especially if such material is part of the 'C' Report resulting in no further proceedings and the concerned Officer is not examined on the reasons for such opinion. This Court, in the circumstances cannot opine that the Tribunal's order is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, there is no reason for interference with the impugned Award. Hence:
Decision
ORDER i. The petition stands disposed of without interference but observing that the Bank must settle all the benefits to the respondent in terms of the Tribunal's Award dated 31.12.2013 in C.R.No.128/2007 subject to any amount that is paid as allowance under Section 17B of the ID Act. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12557 WP No. 24006 of 2014 ii. The respondent is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the petitioners within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof. iii. The Bank is directed to communicate the computation and settle all the benefits to the respondent within three [3] months therefrom. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB