APHC0105551220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5378/2016 Between: he Assistant General Manager, Rg-i, and Others ...PETITIONER( AND he Presiding Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K KRISHNA BUSHAN CHOWDARY(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. KOPPARTHI SUMATHI 3. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J WP_5378_2016 ORDER: This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the 1st Respondent Industrial Tribunal and after scrutiny of the same, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to pass orders quashing the impugned Award dated 25-06-2013 passed in IDLC No.257/2004....” 2. The petitioners herein are Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager of State Bank of India, Tirupati Zonal Office. The 2nd respondent (passed away on 09.04.2015) is represented by his son and is referred herewith as ‘workman’. The workman, while working as an assistant in the petitioner bank was entrusted with the job of carrying out functions as cashier at Kanigiri Branch and on 03.07.2001, has left the bank without handling over the keys of the cash counter to the cash officer as was required as per the rules. As such, the workman was called back to the branch on the same day and when the keys were handed over, the cash counter drawers were opened in the presence of the Branch Manager and Joint Custodian, wherein an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the denomination of Rs.1,00/- was found. It was further observed there was a shortage of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, a preliminary investigation was carried out and subsequently, a charge sheet dated 05.03.2002 was issued to the workman to which a reply was submitted by him on 18.03.2002; as it was found not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 21.08.2002 has appointed one Sri. K. Narasi Reddy, Manager as the enquiry officer for conducting enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman, who after a detailed enquiry has submitted a report dated 3 VS,J WP_5378_2016 31.03.2003 to the disciplinary authority stating that the charges levelled against the workman are proved. 3. After careful consideration, the 1st petitioner herein has issued a show cause notice dated 25.07.2003 to the workman proposing to inflict the punishment of ‘removal of service’ and after considering the submissions made by the workman during the personal hearing afforded to him on 20.09.2003, the 1st petitioner has passed the orders in memorandum No.DPC/R-I-019, dated 09.10.2003 confirming the proposed punishment of ‘removal from service’. The said orders were also upheld by the 2nd petitioner in the appeal preferred by the workman vide orders dated 19.04.2004. Thereafter, the workman has filed a petition under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 before the 1st respondent herein questioning the order of removal from service as well as the order passed by the 2nd petitioner herein. The petition filed by the workman was allowed by the 1st respondent herein vide the impugned award dated 25.06.2013, by setting aside the order of punishment dated 09.10.2003 and directed reinstatement of the workman with back wages. Aggrieved by the said award dated 25.06.2013, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 19.02.2016, this Court has passed an interim order by suspending the operation of the impugned award dated 25.06.2013 in IDLC.No.257/2004. 5. The 2nd respondent-the son of workman, has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the grounds raised by the petitioners and has further stated that the workman has filed a petition under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D.Act, before the 1st respondent challenging the removal orders issued to him and after careful examination of all the records, the 1st respondent has passed an award dated 25.06.2013 4 VS,J WP_5378_2016 directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the workman into service with back wages and all other consequential benefits from the date of dismissal i.e. 09.10.2003 till retirement. Though the workman and the 2nd respondent have approached the respondent for settlement and implementation of the said award dated 25.06.2013, the respondents have not come forward but have straight away filed the present writ petition and have obtained interim order. It is further stated that the petitioners have failed to prove their case in evidence or through records, hence the 1st respondent has rightly passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 which warrants no interference of this Court. Hence, requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. Heard Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K. Krishna Bhushan learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt. Kopparti Sumati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the workman has left the bank without accounting for the cash transactions made by him and without handing over the entire cash and the keys of the cash counter. The shortage of Rs.21,000/- was noticed by the branch functionaries, as such, it was decided to search the cash counter which was under the lock and key of the workman. Accordingly, the workman was summoned and the cash counter was opened with the keys brought by him and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was found in it. As such, the workman was issued with a show cause notice dated 05.03.2002 calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated for the irregularities reported to have been committed by him; as the workman has denied the same, thereupon, a regular domestic enquiry was ordered and the workman was given full and due opportunity for defence. After 5 VS,J WP_5378_2016 completion of enquiry, a report dated 04.04.2003 was submitted and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority and as all the charges levelled against the workman were proved, the disciplinary authority has inflicted the penalty of removal from service vide final order dated 09.10.2003 which was also confirmed in the appeal filed by the workman before the appellate authority. 8. He further contended that the witnesses examined during the course of enquiry were competent and direct witnesses to the incident and as such their evidence is reliable. The petitioners’ bank imposes lots of confidence on its employees while dealing with financial matters, but, the workman has shattered the confidence because of his misconduct. He further contends that the tribunal, while considering the validity of the order dated 09.10.2003 has given an erroneous finding stating that there was no sufficient proof in support of the workman’s guilt, as the same was proved in the enquiry that the workman had illegally retained the cash which belongs to the bank. Contending that the workman is not entitled for any of the reliefs as were given in the impugned award, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned award dated 25.06.2013. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 contend that the Industrial Tribunal, has rightly observed that finding fault with the workman that he failed to give explanation for the shortage of cash, which was allegedly found in his counter at 10.00 p.m., on 03.07.2001 in the presence of the Branch Manager and joint custodians cannot be accepted as proper and that the very finding of such cash in the counter of the workman is to be viewed with doubt, in view of the circumstances of finding of such cash and the manner in 6 VS,J WP_5378_2016 which the same was found. She further contended that the workman’s counter was not searched in his presence, though he was very much available there and that no panchanama proceedings were conducted. The statements of witnesses were not recorded at that time and the same was done three days later. She further contends that the disciplinary authority, after receiving the enquiry report has not afforded any opportunity to the workman to express his contentions/comments regarding the findings of the enquiry report, but has straight away proceeded to propose punishment to be awarded to the workman and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to him. 10. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents states that though the workman was afforded opportunity of personal hearing, the same confines to the quantum of punishment to be awarded only, but, no opportunity to dispute with the various findings of the enquiry officer in the light of the evidence adduced on record during domestic enquiry, has been afforded to the workman by the disciplinary authority. Observing thus, the tribunal has rightly held that the disciplinary authority, unilaterally has considered the enquiry report and has accepted the same without giving an opportunity to the workman. The tribunal has rightly reinstated the workman and held that he is entitled for full back wages from the date of his removal from services i.e. 09.10.2003 till the date of his reinstatement. As such, the impugned award dated 25.06.2013 warrants no interference of this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. The petitioners in the case on hand are the Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager of the State Bank of India, Tirupati Zonal Office. The 2nd respondent, who passed away on 09.04.2015, is represented by his son and is referred to as the 7 VS,J WP_5378_2016 "workman." While the workman was working as assistant at the petitioner's bank, the workman was assigned duties as a cashier at the Kanigiri Branch. On 03.07.2001, the workman left the bank without handing over the keys of the cash counter to the designated cash officer, as required by bank rules. As a result, the workman was called back to the branch the same day. Upon handing over the keys, the cash counter drawers were opened in the presence of the Branch Manager and Joint Custodian, revealing Rs. 20,000 in denominations of Rs. 100, along with a shortage of Rs. 1,000. As such, a preliminary investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet dated 05.03.2002 was issued to the workman, in reply, the workman responded to the charge sheet on 18.03.2002; however, having found the reply unsatisfactory, the disciplinary authority appointed Sri K. Narasi Reddy, Manager, as the enquiry officer to investigate the charges. After a thorough enquiry, Mr. Narasi Reddy submitted a report on 31.03.2003, confirming that the charges against the workman were substantiated. After reviewing the case, the 1st petitioner issued a show-cause notice on 25.07.2003, proposing the penalty of removal from service. During personal hearing on 20.09.2003, taking into consideration the submissions made by the workman, the first petitioner confirmed the proposed penalty vide Memorandum No. DPC/R-I-019 dated 09.10.2003, ordering the removal from service. This decision was upheld by the 2nd petitioner in the appeal filed by the workman on 19.04.2004. 12. Subsequently, the workman filed a petition under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the first respondent, challenging both the removal order and the appellate decision. The first respondent vide award dated 25.06.2013, has set aside the order of removal and ordered the workman's reinstatement with back wages. 8 VS,J WP_5378_2016 13. On a perusal of the impugned award dated 25.06.2013, the Industrial Tribunal had rightly observed that the finding against the workman, that he failed to explain the shortage of cash, was inconsistent. The Tribunal pointed out that the cash was allegedly found in the workman’s counter at 10:00 p.m. on 03.07.2001 in the presence of the Branch Manager and joint custodians, but such a discovery should be viewed with suspicion. Furthermore, it was contended that the workman’s counter was not searched in his presence, despite his availability, and that no panchanama proceedings were conducted. The statements of the witnesses were not recorded at the time of the search but were taken three days later, thus the reliability of their testimony is doubtful. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, after receiving the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority did not provide the workman an opportunity to address or dispute the findings of the enquiry before proposing the punishment of removal. Instead, a show-cause notice was issued directly, amounting to a denial of procedural fairness. While the workman was afforded an opportunity for a personal hearing, it was limited to the quantum of punishment only, and he was not given the chance to challenge the findings of the enquiry officer in light of the evidence presented during the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal, after considering these factors, reasonably concluded that the disciplinary authority had unilaterally accepted the enquiry report without allowing the workman to express his objections. 14. The disciplinary authority has failed to give an opportunity to the workman before accepting the findings of the enquiry officer which in fact is against the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority has unilaterally accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and has issued show cause notice to the workman calling for an 9 VS,J WP_5378_2016 explanation as to why the punishment of removal cannot be imposed upon him, but, the copy of the enquiry report/findings of the enquiry officer were not furnished to the workman calling for his objections if any. Even otherwise, the only irregularity which can be identified on the part of the workman is that he has failed to handover the keys of the cash counter to his higher officials before leaving the office. As the said mistake is a very minor irregularity, the Court below has passed the impugned award setting aside the order of removal dated 09.10.2003. Further, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith along with full backwages from the date of removal from service i.e., 09.10.2003 till the date of his reinstatement and also held that the workman is entitled for all other attendant benefits. 15. As there are certain irregularities on the part of the petitioners and as well as the workman, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition in part by setting aside the impugned award dated 25.06.2013 only to the extent of entitlement of the workman for full backwages from the date of his removal from service till the date of his reinstatement and for all other attendant benefits. The remaining portion of the award is intact. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:.04.04.2025. GSS