- (1.)By the present petition the Petitioner impugnes the award dated 4 th October, 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal after holding that the enquiry was fair and legal re-appreciated the evidence placed before the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that the charges against the Respondent were not proved and hence the action of the Petitioner in dismissing the Respondent from services with effect from 13 th June, 1998 was neither just nor proper and valid. It was directed that the Respondent be reinstated with effect from 13 th June, 1998 with full back wages.
(2.)Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal grossly mis-conducted itself inasmuch as it sat as an appellate Court on the findings of the enquiry officer on the basis of evidence adduced before the enquiry officer. The learned Trial Court misread the evidence in its totality and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence against the Respondent to prove his misconduct. The findings of the learned Trial Court that the second charge is wholly erroneous is contrary to the evidence on record. Further even on the third charge, the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that the Respondent had admitted that the cash receipt stamp was in his custody and thus it was for him to show who received the amount of Rs. 6600/- from the customer which was not credited in his account. Reliance is placed on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, 2011 4 SCC 584to contend that the Tribunal exceeded in its jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence adduced during enquiry as an appellate Court and grossly misread the evidence. Relying on State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee & Ors., 2000 8 SCC 12it is contended that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be vitiated on account of non-joining of the customer of the bank, as the same is not conducive to proper bankercustomer relationship and thus is not in the interest of the bank. Reliance is also placed on State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Bela Bagchi and Ors., 2005 7 SCC 435and State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal, 2008 8 SCC 92to contend that every employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. The charges against the Respondent of temporary embezzlement were very serious in nature and called for no interference by the learned Tribunal who erroneously misconducted itself and set aside the order of dismissal of the Respondent.
(3.)Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the letter of the customer Abdul Alim was not considered by the enquiry officer though the same was an admitted document and in view of this illegality the learned Tribunal was justified in scrutinizing the entire evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and coming to the conclusion that the misconduct of the Respondent was not proved. As regards the third charge, admittedly the Respondent has not signed the pay-in-slip and thus he cannot be held liable for non-accounting of Rs. 6600/-. The Respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 6600/- on 13 th August, 1996 under pressure, as is evident even from the endorsement of the cashier made at the back of ME10. In any case even if the charges are proved against the Respondent, the punishment of dismissal was not proportionate and a lesser punishment like compulsory retirement etc. ought to have been awarded to the Respondent.