Vijaya Bank Vs Vijaya Bank Workers' Organisation and Ors.

-1-

	I	T	HE	HIGH	COURT	OF JUD	ICATU	RE AT	BOMBAY
		ORDI	NARY		ORIGINAL		CIVIL		JURISDICTION
				APPEAL		NO.87		OF	2002
					IN
			WRIT		PETITION	NO	.674	OF	1998
Vijaya	Bank						...A	ppellants
		v/s
Vijaya				Bank		Workers			Organisation
and ors.							...R	espondents
Mr	R.S.	Pai	with	Mr	H. Mehta	i/b	M/s	Haresh	Mehta and
Co.					for				Appellants.
Mr		M.		Desai	fo	r	Re	spondent	No.2.

¶3

CORAM :	D.K.	DESHMUKH AND	J.H. BHATIA JJ.
DATE		: 16TH	OCTOBER 2007.

-2-

P.C.

:-

1.	By this appeal, the app	ellants challenge the
order	dated 9th November	2001 passed by the	learned
Single	Judge of this Court	in writ petition No.674	of
1998.	By that order, the	learned Single Judge	has
dismissed	the writ petition	filed by the	petitioners.
The	petitioners had filed	writ petition challengin	g the
award	made by the Central	Government Industrial	Tribunal
dated	17th October 1996.	The relevant facts are	that
the	respondent No.2 was in	the employment o	f the
appellant	- Bank. He was	placed under suspension	and a
charge-she	et was served on hi	m. The charge agai	nst him
was	that he had issued a	cheque from account	of a
customer	which was closed, in	favour of his cousin	for
Rs.10,000/	-, which cheque was	presented for payment	to
the	Vijaya Bank where his	cousin had an account	and
payment	was made. A depa	rtmental enquiry was held	and
punishmen	t of withholding of	six increments was	imposed.
The	dispute was referred	to the Central	Government
Industrial	Tribunal. By part	I of the award	, the
Central	Government Industrial	Tribunal held that	the
enquiry	was not properly	conducted. Therefore,	the
appellants before	were given an the Central Govern	opportunity to lead ment Industrial Tribunal	evidence which

¶8

-3-

¶9

was	led	by	the appell	ants.	T	he Tribunal,	after
appreciating		the	evidence led	by	the	appellants,	made
the	award	hold	ing that the	charge	is	not proved	against
the	responde	nt	No.2 and the	refore,	the	punishment	of
withholding		six	increments was		set	aside.	The

¶10

appellants were directed to release the amount of

¶11

increments.

¶12

2.		In writ	petition filed in this Court, tha	t
award	was ch	allenged	and the writ	petit	ion,	as	observed
above,	has been	reject	ed. We have	heard	lea	rned	counsel
appearing	for appel	lants	at length.	We	find	that	during
the	departmental	enqu	iry, Mr Pradeep	Hegde,	alle	ged	to
be	the cousin	of	the respondent, was	ex	amined	as	a
witness	but before	the	Tribunal, he was	given	up	and	was
not	examined as	a	witness. He was	the	only	witness	who

¶13

could have proved that the cheque was given to him by

¶14

the respondent.

¶15

3.			The	Trib	unal, in o	ur opinion	, has corr	ectly
observed	that		there		is no	direct	evide	nce led	by	the
appellants		to	estab	lish	that	the	cheq	ue fro	m the	closed
account	was	given	to		Mr	Pradeep	Hegd	e by	the	respondent.
In	order	to	prove		the	misconduct	, it	was	necessary	for
the	appellants		to		prove	by	direct	evidence	that	the
cheque	was	issu	ed	by	the	respond	ents.	We	find	from the
evidence	th	at	it	is	also	not	proved	that	the	respondent

¶16

-4-

¶17

No.2	was	in	possession	of	the	cheque.	We	are in		total
agreement	wit	h	the fin	ding	recor	ded by	the	Tribu	nal	that
giving	up	Mr	Pradeep	Hegde	as	a witness	was	fatal.		It
is	only	Mr	Pradeep	Hegde	who	could	have	thrown	light	as

¶18

to in what circumstance he came to be in possession of

¶19

the cheque.

¶20

4.			The lear	ned coun	sel appearing fo	r appellan	ts
invited	our	at	tention	to	the sta	tements	made	in	the
reply	field	by	the		respondent.		Perusal	of	those
statements		shows	that	when	the re	spondent	found	in	the
bank	that		there	were	certain	allegatio	ns made		against
his	cousin,	he	tried	to	help his	cousin.	By	no	stretch
of im	agination,	the	sta	tements	made	by	the r	espondent	in

¶21

the reply can be treated to be in any way admission of

¶22

the guilt by the respondent.

¶23

5.		In our opinion,	as held by the	Industrial
Tribunal	and	the learned	Single Jud	ge that	as a	matter
of fact	the	appellants have	failed	to prove	guilt	of the
respondent,	it	will not	be	appropriate	for	us to
interfere	with	the order	impugned	in this	appeal	when
both the		Courts below	have	recorded	a	concurrent

¶24

finding. Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No

¶25

order as to costs.

¶26

Parties to act on the copy of this order duly

¶27

-5-

¶28

authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary as

¶29

true copy.

¶30

. Certified copy expedited.

¶31

( D.K. DESHMUKH J.)

¶32

( J.H. BHATIA J.)

Vijaya Bank v. Vijaya Bank Workers' Organisation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Bank v. Vijaya Bank Workers' Organisation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ragini Narayan Vs Minnie Narayan

B.M. Srinivasaiah, Smt.Lakshmidevamma Charity Trust Vs Ragini Narayan

Allwyn Gonsalves Vs Cardinal Simon Pimenta and Ors.

Echjay Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs Echjay Forgings Ltd.

SBI Mutal Fund Vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. and Ors.

Vanijya Share Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs R. C. Goenka and Ors.