CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) Reserved on:-06.8.2026 Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 Indian Bank and another ......Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial .....Respondents Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and another 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 06.8.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.8.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.08.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. N.A. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Argued by: Mr. Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Abhay Josan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order 06.12.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 2-workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal of service. 2. As per the pleaded facts, Respondent No.2 joined the petitioner-Bank as a Clerk on 24.06.2013 and was posted at its Manimajra GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -2- Branch, Chandigarh. On 07.06.2016, while respondent No.2 was manning the cash counter, one Mr. Santosh, an employee of M/s Atul Jewellers, is alleged to have tendered cash of Rs.20,000/- for deposit. On counting, an amount of Rs.19,000/- alone was found to have been accounted for, resulting in a discrepancy of Rs.1,000/-. On this basis, a charge-sheet dated 16.09.2016 was issued to respondent No.2 alleging five charges, essentially that he had short-accounted the cash by Rs.1,000/-, compelled the depositor to fill a revised challan for the lesser amount, failed to report the excess cash, and refunded the amount to the customer only on 08.06.2016 after the CCTV footage was reviewed by the Vigilance Officer. A domestic enquiry was thereafter held. The petitioner-Bank examined Sh. A.K. Singh, the then AGM/Branch Manager, as its Management Witness and relied upon the CCTV footage of the cash cabin dated 07.06.2016. The Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 16.06.2017, held all five charges to be proved. A show- cause notice dated 16.11.2017 was thereafter issued proposing the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits. Respondent No.2 sought 15 days' time to submit his reply and thereafter submitted his reply dated 29.11.2017. The Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 30.11.2017, imposed the penalty of dismissal without notice under Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action and Procedure dated 10.04.2002. The departmental appeal preferred by respondent No.2 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.01.2019. Thereafter, upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred for adjudication and registered as ID No.81 of 2019 before respondent No.1. The petitioner-Bank filed its written statement on 27.10.2021, but thereafter failed to appear for cross-examination of respondent No.2 despite opportunities and was consequently proceeded GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -3- against ex parte vide order dated 15.04.2024, no oral or documentary evidence being thereafter led on its behalf. Vide the impugned Award dated 06.12.2024, respondent No.1 held that the charge of misappropriation was not proved for want of substantive evidence, set aside the order of dismissal dated 30.11.2017 as also the appellate order dated 09.01.2019, and directed reinstatement of respondent No.2 with consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court. Submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award is unsustainable as the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court suffer from gross misreading and improper appreciation of the material available on the record, inasmuch as the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the charge of short-accounting of cash stood duly proved on the basis of the CCTV footage and the deposition of the Management Witness. It is further contended that the Labour Court, by proceeding ex parte against the petitioner-Bank without adequately considering the reasons for its non-appearance, has denied the petitioner-Bank a fair opportunity of being heard, and has, in the process, exceeded its jurisdiction by re- appreciating the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as though sitting in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that once financial misconduct on the part of an employee of a banking institution stands established, the same results in loss of confidence and reinstatement cannot be directed. It has been argued that the reliance by the Labour Court on the ground that the complainant (the customer) namely Mr. Santosh, had not been examined during the domestic enquiry is also not sufficient to overlook the entire material evidence on record. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -4- passed by the Apex Court in case titled as General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank and others versus Daya Singh (2010) Supreme Court Cases 233; the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 15140 of 2019 titled as Amrik Dass Bhatti versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh and another; and the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in case titled as Asstt. General Manager State Bank of India versus Ashok Kumar Bhatia 2021 SCC Online Del 5419. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. Submissions on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the impugned order. It has been argued that the impugned Award has correctly appreciated the enquiry record and does not suffer from any perversity. It is submitted that the sole Management Witness, Sh. A.K. Singh, when specifically asked in cross-examination whether he himself had noticed respondent No.2 pocketing any currency note on 07.06.2016, answered in the negative; that neither the customer, Mr. Santosh, nor the complaint allegedly made by him was produced or proved during the enquiry; and that no evidence was led to establish that Mr. Santosh had in fact tendered Rs.20,000/- to the cashier. It is further submitted that the dismissal order dated 30.11.2017 proceeds on the incorrect premise that respondent No.2 had appeared for personal hearing on 18.11.2017, whereas he had sought 15 days' time by letter dated 17.11.2017, and that the enhancement of the proposed penalty of removal with superannuation benefits to dismissal without notice was made without assigning any reason. It is submitted that the petitioner-Bank, having failed to appear before the Labour Court despite repeated opportunities, was rightly proceeded against ex parte and led no GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -5- evidence whatsoever, and cannot now contend that it was denied an opportunity of hearing. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in cases titled as (i) The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber C. of India P. Ltd versus The Management and others 1973(1) SCC 813; (ii) Grindlays Bank Ltd. Versus The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others 1981 SCC (L&S) 309; (iii) Union Bank of India versus Sidhartha Chakraborty 2007(7) SCC 670; (iv) South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Employees Union versus B. Yashodabai and others 2015(2) SCC 727; (v) Om Kumar versus Union of India 2001(2) SCC 386; (vi) Mavji C. Lakum versus Central Bank of India 2008(2) SCT 750; and (vii) Rajinder Kumar Khindra versus Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and others 1984(4) SC 635. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned award is based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Analysis & conclusion 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. It is well settled that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over an award of the Labour Court and does not ordinarily re- appreciate the evidence or substitute its own view for that of the Labour Court merely because another view may be possible. Interference is warranted only where the award is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence or such that no reasonable adjudicating authority could have arrived at it on the material on record. It is also relevant that the Labour GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -6- Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute arising from dismissal, exercises the jurisdiction available to it under Section 11-A of the Act, and is required to consider whether the order of dismissal is justified on the material placed before it. 7. Tested on the aforesaid touchstone, the impugned award does not call for interference. The learned Labour Court has examined the material which formed the basis of the departmental proceedings and has recorded reasons for concluding that the charge of misappropriation was not established. This conclusion was not founded merely upon the non- examination of the customer. The award records that the management witness had been examined during the enquiry, and that the CCTV footage dated 07.06.2016 had also been relied upon as documentary evidence. 8. In particular, the learned Labour Court noticed that the management witness, when asked in cross-examination whether he himself had noticed respondent No. 2 pocketing any currency note, answered in the negative. It further noticed that the complaint allegedly made by Mr. Santosh was not produced during the enquiry, and that neither Mr. Santosh nor the proprietor of M/s Atul Jewellers or his son, who was stated to have handed over the complaint, was examined. The learned Labour Court also considered the CCTV footage and noticed that Rs. 1,000/- note, shown therein to have been blown by air pressure and to have come to rest near the monitor, could not, in the absence of further corroborative evidence, be treated as establishing that the said note formed part of the Rs.20,000/- allegedly tendered by the depositor. 9. Still further, the learned Labour Court further noticed that there was no finding in the enquiry report as to how it stood proved that respondent No. 2 had compelled Mr. Santosh to fill up a revised deposit GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -7- challan for Rs. 19,000/-. On a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid material, the learned Labour Court concluded that the very genesis of the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.1,000/- remained unproved. The finding was thus not recorded merely because the customer had not been examined but the learned Labour Court considered the evidence actually brought on record and found that it did not establish the essential facts constituting the charge. 10. It is true that the Enquiry Officer had taken a different view of the same material and had held the charges proved, which, however, does not by itself render the impugned award amenable to interference. The learned Labour Court has not disregarded the enquiry record. It has examined the very material relied upon during the domestic enquiry and has given reasons referable to the record for reaching a different conclusion. This Court is not required to determine which of the two views is preferable. Unless the view taken by the learned Labour Court is shown to be perverse or one which no reasonable adjudicating authority could have arrived at, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be warranted. On the material noticed hereinabove, the conclusion reached by the learned Labour Court cannot be so characterised. 11. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the learned Labour Court has impermissibly re-appreciated the evidence cannot, therefore, be accepted in its broad form. The learned Labour Court was adjudicating the industrial dispute arising from the dismissal of respondent No. 2, and its conclusion that the charge was not established was based upon the material forming part of the enquiry proceedings and upon reasons recorded in the impugned award. The mere fact that such appreciation resulted in a conclusion different from that of the Enquiry GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -8- Officer does not in itself furnish a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction. 12. No doubt, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance upon The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank and others vs. Daya Singh’s case (supra), and Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India vs. Ashok Kumar Bhatia’s case (supra) for the proposition that employees of banking institutions are held to a high standard of integrity, and that non-examination of a customer is not necessarily fatal to a departmental proceeding. There can be no quarrel with the general proposition but the factual foundation of the cited authorities, however, is material. In The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank and others vs. Daya Singh’s case (supra), the finding of misconduct was supported by documentary evidence, including entries in the handwriting of the delinquent officer, which independently established his role in the transactions in question, and it was in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in re-appreciating the evidence and treating the Enquiry Officer's findings as perverse. In Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India vs. Ashok Kumar Bhatia’s case (supra), cheques and passbook entries running into lakhs of rupees, in two independent instances, established a clear pattern of routing customer’s funds into the delinquent's personal account. In both cases, it was the documentary evidence, and not the oral testimony of the customer, that proved the charge. 13. The present case stands on a different footing. The learned Labour Court has found that there was no comparable material establishing that the Rs.1,000/- note seen in the CCTV footage, was part of the Rs. 20,000/- allegedly tendered by the customer, and that the essential fact of the customer having actually tendered Rs.20,000/- to respondent No. 2 had itself GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -9- not been established by substantive evidence. The cited judgments cannot be read as laying down that the mere status of an employee as a bank employee dispenses with the requirement of material establishing the misconduct. The higher standard of integrity expected of an employee of a banking institution is undoubtedly relevant while considering proved misconduct. It cannot, however, substitute for proof of the misconduct itself. 14. The reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in Amrik Dass Bhatti’s case (supra) also does not advance the case of the petitioners. In that case, the charge of embezzlement of Rs. 500/- stood proved, and the only question before the Court was whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate, applying the settled principle that interference on the ground of disproportionality lies only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, following Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil Kumar, Civil Appeal No.219 of 2023, decided on 19.01.2023, this Court found no case for interference. The present case stands on a different footing altogether. Here, the learned Labour Court has not proceeded on the basis that the charge of misappropriation stood proved and that only the quantum of punishment was in issue. It has found that the charge itself was not established by substantive evidence. A judgment dealing with the proportionality of punishment on a proved charge cannot, therefore, govern the present controversy. 15. The learned Labour Court has also noticed two further infirmities in the dismissal order dated 30.11.2017. First, the dismissal order proceeds on the premise that respondent No. 2 had appeared before the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing on 18.11.2017, whereas the record, including his letter dated 17.11.2017, showed that he had sought 15 days' time for submitting his reply and that there was no communication GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -10- regarding his request for extension. The learned Labour Court accordingly found the observation in the dismissal order regarding his personal appearance to be incorrect. Second, the learned Labour Court noticed the material difference between the punishment proposed in the show-cause notice dated 16.11.2017, namely removal from service with superannuation benefits, and the punishment ultimately imposed, namely dismissal without notice under Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement. The impugned award records that no reason was assigned for the change from the punishment proposed to the harsher punishment ultimately imposed, and on that account also, found the dismissal order unsustainable. 16. These aspects do not require this Court to undertake a fresh appreciation of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry. They are circumstances expressly noticed by the learned Labour Court from the record before it and form part of its reasoning in examining the legality of the dismissal order. The learned Labour Court cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction merely because it took the aforesaid circumstances into consideration while adjudicating the industrial dispute. 17. The contention that the petitioner-Bank was denied a fair opportunity before the learned Labour Court also does not assist the petitioners. The record shows that the petitioner-Bank had filed its written statement but thereafter failed to take proper steps and repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination of respondent No. 2. It was consequently proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.04.2024, and led neither oral nor documentary evidence before the learned Labour Court. There is nothing placed on record before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioner-Bank subsequently had the ex parte order recalled, or that despite availing the GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -11- opportunities granted by the learned Labour Court, it was prevented from defending its case. 18. It is also significant that the impugned award does not rest merely upon the fact that the petitioner-Bank was proceeded against ex parte. The learned Labour Court examined the enquiry record and the evidence brought on record by respondent No.2, including the charge-sheet, enquiry proceedings, enquiry report, dismissal order and appellate order, and thereafter recorded its findings. The ex parte proceedings, therefore, form part of the procedural background and not the sole basis for the conclusion reached by the Labour Court. 19. On an overall consideration of the matter, the learned Labour Court has given reasons for its conclusion that the charge of misappropriation was not established by substantive evidence. The conclusion is founded upon the material referred to in the impugned award and cannot be said to be one which no reasonable adjudicating authority could have arrived at. The fact that the Enquiry Officer had taken a contrary view does not justify this Court in substituting its own assessment of the evidence for that of the learned Labour Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 20. The principle that an employee of a banking institution is required to maintain a high degree of integrity, and that proved financial misconduct may justify a stringent punishment, is not in dispute. The seriousness attached to such misconduct, however, cannot dispense with the requirement that the misconduct itself be established on the material available on record. In the present case, the learned Labour Court has found the foundational allegation of misappropriation to be unproved, and that finding has not been shown to suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error. GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29052 of 2025 (O&M) -12- 21. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned award dated 06.12.2024 warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE August 27th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh