CWP No. 20308 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (114) CWP No. 20308 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 The Deputy General Manager (B&O), State Bank of India and Another ......Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-1 and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Palak Gosain, Advocate for the petitioners. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.06.2026 (Annexure P- 11) passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh whereby, while deciding the preliminary issue regarding the validity and fairness of the domestic enquiry, the enquiry report dated 08.08.2011 has been set aside. 2. While submitting a brief backdrop of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-bank submits that respondent No. 2-workman joined the petitioner(s)-Bank as an Assistant (Clerical) on 04.12.2000 at SBI, Charna Branch. During his service, he worked as a cashier and also handled loan recovery work. The Bank alleged that he committed various acts of gross misconduct and issued a charge-sheet dated 10.03.2009. A departmental enquiry was conducted with respect to serious allegations of misconduct relating to illegal gratification from borrowers, unexplained RITIKA 2026.07.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 20308 of 2026 -2- financial transactions, false claims of commission and travelling allowance, and misuse of cheque books, and full opportunity was afforded to the respondent No.2-workman, who participated in the proceedings. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 08.08.2011, holding various charges levelled against the workman as being proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after independently considering the enquiry record and granting an opportunity of personal hearing, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent No.2-workman vide order dated 25.04.2012, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 28.06.2012. It is further submitted that despite this, the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence at the stage of deciding the preliminary issue and has set aside the enquiry report, which is impermissible in law. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Tribunal recorded specific findings that relevant material placed by the respondent No.2-workman during the enquiry was not properly considered. Although directions had been issued for supplying relevant documents sought by the workman for preparing his defence, several such documents were not supplied. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly concluded that the workman was not afforded an effective opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal further observed that the explanation regarding the financial transactions in his accounts, the claims relating to commission on loan recovery and travelling allowance, and the findings on Charge No.6 were either not adequately considered or were not supported by proper reasons. 5. It is well settled that while examining the validity of a domestic enquiry, the Labour Court is entitled to examine whether the enquiry has RITIKA 2026.07.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 20308 of 2026 -3- been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether the findings suffer from non-application of mind or failure to consider relevant material. Such scrutiny is within its jurisdiction. 6. In the present case, the findings of the learned Tribunal are based on deficiencies noticed in the enquiry proceedings themselves. The petitioner-Bank has failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 08, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.15 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh