A.K. SAXENA Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 3668 of 2012, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2016

                                                              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 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 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