Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3668 OF 2012

A.K. SAXENA APPELLANT                                               VERSUS      STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T   KURIAN,J.                    

1. The Appellant entered the service of the respondent No.1  on 21.10.1978 as Cashier-cum-Clerk.  On 16.04.1991 a complaint  was  made  by  a  customer-  Hari  Shankar  Yadav  regarding  fraudulent  withdrawal  of  an  amount  of  Rs.80,000/-  (rupees  eighty thousand only) from his account.  A preliminary enquiry  followed, pursuant to which the appellant was issued charge  sheet and thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted.  On the  basis of the report of the enquiry the appellant was dismissed  from  service  on  02.07.1993.   Appellant  preferred  a  departmental  appeal  which  was  rejected.   Since  the  Labour  Court was of the view that enquiry conducted by the Management  was not fair and proper, by final Award dated 17.12.1997 it  was held that the termination of the appellant was illegal and  there was direction for his reinstatement with the back wages.  The Award was challenged by the respondent-Bank before the  High Court.  The High Court allowed the petition and thus the  appellant is before this Court.  When the matter was pending  before the High Court pursuant to interim order passed by the  

1

Page 2

Court,  we  are  informed  that  it  is  not  disputed  that  the  appellant has been paid an amount of Rs.14,05,417/- towards  back wages and an amount of Rs.9,34,573/- towards Section 17B  of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  

2. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that  even according to the bank there were four people involved in  the alleged fraud and the bank proceeded only against the  appellant.   The  complainant  Mr.  Yadav  initiated  criminal  proceedings against the other three persons but not against  the appellant. He further submitted that the Labour Court  having regard to the evidence available before it, has taken  a plausible view that it is not  possible to establish the  charges levelled against the appellant and, therefore, the  High Court was not justified in reversing the plausible view  taken by the Labour Court.

3. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Bank  however,  submitted  that  the  appellant  was  Head  Cashier  and  at  his  instance only the other three employees were roped in as a  part of the fraud, without knowing that it was a fraud.  He  further submits that the Bank had also initiated Disciplinary  Proceedings against those three employees.  However, the High  Court in the impugned judgment has ordered that those three  employees  must  not  be  given  any  further  increment  or  promotion.

4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that those three  employees  have suffered the punishment.

5. In the above factual matrix, we put query to the learned  counsel  for  the  Bank  as  to  how  the  appellant  alone  is  discriminated  and  dismissed  from  service.   The  learned  counsel has invited our attention extensively to the evidence  

2

Page 3

that  appellant  was  the  kingpin  of  the  whole  transaction,  being a Head Cashier other three have only obeyed his request  for consequential steps.  We find it difficult to appreciate  the  submission  in  view  of  the  factual  position  as  noted  above.

6 In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the  interest of justice would be advanced in case the punishment  imposed on the appellant is suitably altered.

7. The  appellant  has  attained  the  age  of  superannuation  and that he has received hefty amounts from the Bank while  remaining out of service after 1993.  Hence, it is ordered  that the appellant shall be treated to have been retired from  service on completion of 15 years of service and accordingly,  his  retiral  benefits  shall  be  settled  for  the  purpose  of  future pension from the month of February, 2016.  Since he  has  already  received  wages  in  between,  there  shall  be  no  arrears of pension.

8. The appeal is disposed of.  

      .....................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

  ......................J.

        [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]  NEW DELHI;  FEBRUARY 18, 2016

3