V. Sasikumar v The South Indian Bank and Industrial Tribunal, Palghat

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY** ## **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 14703 of 2006 (A)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** ## **--------------------** **V. SASIKUMAR, VAKAYIL HOUSE, KANNAMBRA P.O., KOTTEKKAD PALGHAT DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, T.B.ROAD MISSION QUARTERS, TRICHUR-680 001.** ## **2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALGHAT.** **R1 BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI BY ADV. SRI.RONY J.PALLATH R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. MAYA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 14703 of 2006 (A)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.10.2001. EXT.P2 COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.4.2002. EXT.P3 COPY OF AWARD DATED 31.8.2005.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **B.P. Ray, J.** ==================================== ## W.P.(C)No.14703/2006 ==================================== Dated this the 15[th] day of July, 2013. ## **JUDGMENT** 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel Adv.Sri.Pathros Mathai and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner who was a sub-staff of the first respondent bank was placed under suspension on the ground of misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the following charges: “1) That you, on 12.8.1999 with the apparent intention of deceiving and defrauding the bank, approached the bazar branch of the bank for availing gold loan by pledging gold ornaments which were found to be of spurious nature on conducting acid test by the Addl.Manager of the branch. 2) That you on 16.7.1999 taking advantage of your official position as sub-staff of the Secretarial Department, Head Office, Trichur prevailed upon the Manager of the Mission Quarters branch of the bank from checking the gold ornaments with the apparent intention of deceiving and defrauding the bank and ## W.P.(C)No.14703/2006 ## -:2:- availed gold loan from the branch as G.L.No.45/99-2000 for Rs.7000/- by pledging gold ornaments consisting 5 bangles which were found to be spurious in nature on inspection conducted by officials after the alleged acts of misconduct as detailed in charge No.1 was detected. Thus you defrauded the bank. The aforesaid acts alleged to have been committed by you amount to deceiving and defrauding the bank violation of HO instruction and acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.” 3. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against him. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations and asserting his innocence. Dissatisfied with the reply, domestic enquiry was ordered by the senior manager of the Bank. The management examined four witnesses and produced documents and the matter was enquired into by the senior manager and no workmen was examined. It came out in evidence that the petitioner had no dishonest intention when he came to the bazaar branch for pledging the ornaments. At the outset itself, he informed the manager that the ornaments belonged to his W.P.(C)No.14703/2006 ## -:3:- neighbour who had entrusted the same for pledging and that the purity of the ornaments has to be tested. In fact, due to his insistence the ornaments were tested. On finding that the ornaments were not genuine, he took it back. 4. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was in the habit of taking loans by mortgaging spurious gold in different branches of bank and from the Employees Co-operative Society. The management, accepting the report of the enquiry officer dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter. the petitioner has taken the aid of co-worker to conduct his defence. He also preferred appeal, Ext.P3, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. After that, he raised a dispute which was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. The Industrial Tribunal in Paragraphs 11 and 14 found as follows: “11.The further defence of the workman is that on 12.8.1989, he himself suggested the Branch Manager to test the gold, which he had given for availing loan and his conduct in this W.P.(C)No.14703/2006 -:4:- regard would show that he was loyal and sincere. He had brought the gold items on all occasions pretending that the same belonged to him. As per the rules of the managementbank, gold loan would be sanctioned only against the gold owned by the loanee. The loanee has to give a declaration to that effect. The delinquent workman has given such declaration and only when he was caught red handed on 12.8.1999, he disclosed that the gold he had pledged belonged to Radhakrishna. There can be no doubt that his suggestion to test the gold items on 12.8.1999 in that context was only to pretend that he was not aware that the said items were spurious. Therefore, it cannot be held that his conduct in this regard would show that he was innocent. 14.The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the extreme punishment of dismissal is excessive. I am of the considered opinion that pledging spurious gold items by an employee with the bank where he was employed cannot be viewed as a minor offence. The fact that another employee against whom also similar allegations were raised still continues in employment cannot be taken as a valid gound to interfere with the punishment of dismissal meted out to the workman herein. The Suprem,e Court has observed in Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan (1998 (4) SCC 310) that in the banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity ## W.P.(C)No.14703/2006 ## -:5:- and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of all concerned viz, the public, the management and also other employees of the bank to retain a workman who had committed serious misconduct involving economic offence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be subjected to judicial review by the court/tribunal unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has rendered 18 years of service without any complaint against him. So, some leniency has to be shown on him. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank relying on the decision in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H.Amaresh (2006 (6) SCCC - 187) submits that once the bank has lost trust on an employee, no leniency could be shown against him. 7. Considering the concurrent findings reached by the disciplinary W.P.(C)No.14703/2006 -:6:- authority as well as the appellate authority and the Industrial Tribunal, I am not persuaded to take a different view than what has been arrived at by the forums below. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. sl. **B.P. Ray, Judge.**