The General Manager Vs the President

THE PRESIDENT, MYSORE DIVISION, GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ROOM NO. 3, 1^ST FLOOR, PAI COMPLEX, CHANDRAGUPTA ROAD, BEHIND SANTOSH HOTEL, MYSORE - 570 091.

¶17

1(a) SMT. SPANDANA MURTHY, D/O KRISHNAMURTHY.C., R/AT NO.103, 4^TH CROSS, CHAYADEVI NAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 577 019.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

1(b) SMT. SANKALPA MURTHY, D/O SAMYUKTHA MURTHY, R/AT NO. 554, 4^TH CROSS, CHAYADEVI NAGARA, UDAYAGIRI,

¶22

MYSURU - 577 019.

¶23

1(c) SMT. SAMYUKTHA MURTHY, D/O KRISHNAMURTHY. C., R/AT NO. 554, 4^TH CROSS, CHAYADEVI NAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 577 019.

¶24

1(d) SRI. AJENDRA SIMHA, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY .C., R/AT NO. 554, 4^TH CROSS, CHAYADEVI NAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 577 019.

¶25

(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.01.2026)

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KUTTAPPA B.D., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a-d))

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO PASSING OF THE AWARD DATED: 26.11.2019 IN CR.NO.51/2007 PASSED BY CGIT-CUMLABOUR COURT, BENGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING THE AWARD DATED:26.11.2019 IN CR.NO.51/2007 PASSED BY THE LD. CGIT CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, ANNEXURE-'A' TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶35

The present Writ Petition has been filed impugning

¶36

the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short 'the CGIT') in CR 51/2007.

¶37

The Central Government vide order dated 07.03.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), referred the following dispute for adjudication:

¶38

"Whether the action of management of State

¶39

Bank of Mysore in imposing the punishment of dismissal from the services on Shri C.Krishna Murthy, Ex-Daftary, State Bank of Mysore, J.S.S.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

College Branch, Mysore w.e.f. 05.09.1996 is legal

¶43

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

¶44

The respondent joined the service of the State

¶45

Bank of Mysore in the year 1983 as Peon in Ponnampet branch. The State Bank of Mysore has got merged with State Bank of India in 2017.

¶46

The respondent faced the domestic inquiry in respect of the following charges:

¶47

" CHARGE I : You are alleged to have surreptitiously removed a draft leaf bearing No.TT/82/039276 from the draft book of our Krishnamurthypuram Branch and unauthorisedly wrote the draft for Rs.7,000.00 mentioning the date as 19-5-90 in favour of Smt.H.Suma drawn on our T.Narasipur Branch without the Bank's receiving any consideration. The signature of the drawing official differs with his specimen available on record. The draft was encashed at our T.Narasipur Branch on 21-5-90 causing financial loss to the Bank.

¶48

CHARGE II : You are alleged to have surreptitiously removed a draft leaf bearing

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

No.OL/83/358945 from the draft book of our Krishnamurthypuram Branch and wrote the draft for Rs.24,000.00 mentioning the date as 21.7.90 in favour of Smt.Bhagyamma drawn on our A.D.B., Sugar Town, Mandya without the Bank's receiving any consideration. The signature of the drawing official differs with his specimen available on record. The draft was encashed at our A.D.B., Sugar Town, Mandya through the savings bank account of Smt.Bhagyamma maintained at our Guthalu Branch, Mandya, thus causing financial loss to the Bank.

¶53

CHARGE III : You are alleged to have raised a loan of Rs.10,728.00 from M/s.Manipal Finance Corporation, Mysore on 13^th November, 1990 for purchase of Videocon T.V. without obtaining permission from the Bank. You are further alleged to have surreptitiously removed a cheque book bearing No.426961-426970 of our Krishnamurthypuram Branch, Mysore and have issued the cheques to the said Manipal Finance Corporation, Mysore giving the account No.5087 of Dr.J.M.Raman in repayment of the said loan with an intention to defraud the Manipal Finance Corporation, Mysore and brining discredit to the image of the Bank and our account holder, Dr.J.M.Raman. the cheque bearing No.426964 which was issued by you in favour of the said

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Manipal Finance Corporation has been returned unpaid."

¶57

The Charge sheet was issued on 27.04.1992. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in accordance with the relevant regulations of the Bank and in due observance of the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the respondent. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice and passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service against the respondent on 29.08.1996. The appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority also came to be dismissed.

¶58

The respondent also faced the Criminal Case, however he was acquitted in the Criminal Case vide order dated 12.03.1997. The said Judgment has not been placed on record. In the absence of the judgment of the Trial Court of acquittal, we are not in a position to record our finding whether the acquittal was an honorable acquittal or was on technical ground.

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

For 10 long years, the respondent kept quite

¶62

even after he was acquitted in the Criminal Case vide Judgment dated 12.03.1997. He did not take steps to challenge the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority after conclusion of the domestic inquiry against him. The CGIT though took note of the fact that the punishment order was passed in September 1996 and the respondent had raised the industrial dispute after 10 long years and he had not assigned any reason for any such undue delay in approaching the CGIT, but the Tribunal entertained the industrial dispute and passed the award impugned in the present Writ Petition and set-aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the Bank to treat the respondent as on duty from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation and pay 50% of the backwages.

¶63

The CGIT has come to the conclusion about the illegality in the inquiry report on the basis that the relevant documents could not be produced before it.

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

The learned counsel for the Bank however

¶67

submits that after 10 years, there was no occasion for the Bank to keep the record of the domestic inquiry, in as much as the dispute was no longer pending in any Court, the record was destroyed and it had been held against the Bank that the inquiry was not properly conducted. The learned counsel invited our attention to Paragraph No.10 of the petition wherein the petitioner has stated regarding destruction of the case documents.

¶68

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - workman has submitted that as the Bank could not prove the charges before the CGIT, the CGIT was well within its jurisdiction and power to reject the inquiry report and set-aside the punishment order. He therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the CGIT does not require an interference by this Court.

¶69

We have considered the submissions.

¶70

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

The facts are not in dispute that the domestic inquiry was conducted for gross and serious charges of misfeasance by the respondent - workman. The respondent - workman did not challenge the order of punishment and inquiry for 10 long years before approaching the CGIT in the industrial dispute. An employer is not expected to keep the record of the inquiry even after 10 years when the matter was not subjudiced before any Tribunal/ Court in respect of the domestic inquiry conducted against the respondent-workman. The delay and laches goes to the root of the matter. The CGIT has just brushed aside the gross delay and laches in raising the industrial dispute by the respondent. In a casual manner, the CGIT has interfered with the inquiry report and punishment order passed against the respondent - workman for serious charges. Once the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations and in due observance of the principles of natural justice, unless the CGIT would find that the

¶73

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

punishment awarded was grossly inappropriate, it should

¶76

not interfere with the punishment. In the present case, however, the Tribunal has set-aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the Bank to treat the respondent as on duty from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation and pay 50% of the backwages.

¶77

We have considered the submissions and perused the impugned award passed by the CGIT. We are of the view that the impugned award passed by the CGIT is untenable in law. The gross delay and laches in raising the industrial dispute itself was sufficient to dismiss the reference. Instead of dismissing the reference, the CGIT has held that the inquiry was not conducted in a correct manner, that too, after 10 long years.

¶78

The CGIT has reasoned its order for moulding the relief at Paragraph No.9, which reads as under:

¶79

"While moulding relief, it also cannot be lost sight of that in respect of the punishment order of September 1996 he raised the dispute after a

¶80

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:13017-DB WP No. 12904 of 2020

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

delay of 10 years. He has not assigned any reason for the undue delay. The elaborate delay on his part in raising the dispute probably occasioned in disappearance of part of the Enquiry records. Sh. RU for the 2^nd Party has strong objection, against the claim both on the ground of delay and also for the reason that the workman had accepted the punishment order and did not choose to prefer the appeal."

¶83

We fail to understand that despite the observation that there was no plausible explanation to the

¶84

delay caused and it was probably the reason for disappearance of the case papers, proceeded to hold that failure of the second party in not placing oral evidence adduced, documents exhibited and the proceedings drawn on each hearing date before it, are the reasons to record that the second party failed to justify their action in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service from the first party Corporation.

¶85