Orissa High Court: The petitioner, State Bank of India (‘Bank’), filed the present writ petition challenging the award given by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (‘Tribunal’), wherein it directed reinstatement of a Messenger (‘Workman’) with 50% back wages after his dismissal for allegedly facilitating withdrawal from a deceased person’s account. The Division Bench of Harish Tandon, CJ., and K.R. Mohapatra*, J., held that the materials on record were not sufficient to hold the Workman guilty of any misconduct alleged against him and the departmental inquiry was not conducted with all fairness and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the Bank to pay Rs 5 lakh towards lump sum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and 50% of the back wages, as directed by the Tribunal.
Background:
The Workman, who was appointed as a Messenger in the Bank on 26-3-1992, was dismissed following a departmental inquiry alleging his involvement in facilitating the illegal withdrawal of Rs 20,000 from dormant account of a deceased pensioner in the year 2000. The withdrawal was made using a withdrawal slip bearing a left thumb impression and it was discovered next day that the account holder had died long ago, and the money was withdrawn by her grandson. The incident came to the attention of higher authorities, and a departmental proceeding was initiated against four employees. The Workman was alleged to have presented the deceased’s withdrawal slip, requested a token by claiming that the depositor could not approach the counter due to a heavy rush, and facilitated the withdrawal of funds from the deceased’s account.
However, the Workman had recovered the amount from the drawee and had deposited the same in the account by the time the departmental proceeding was initiated, and the inquiry report was submitted, holding the Workman guilty of gross misconduct for facilitating the withdrawal of the amount from the account of a deceased person, resulting in the imposition of the major punishment of removal from the Bank’s service.
Aggrieved by the punishment, the workman denied any involvement, challenged his removal, and claimed that withdrawing cash from a savings bank account was not part of his duties as per the duty chart of a Messenger. He further contended that there must have been irregularities or negligence on the part of the officer who authorized the withdrawal slip and issued the token. The incident occurred due to the negligence of the officials involved in passing the withdrawal slip, issuing the token, and releasing the cash, who were merely given minor punishments. He also alleged that there were procedural lapses in the inquiry, and that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the official witnesses, nor given a chance to produce his own witnesses. Furthermore, no material was presented to suggest that the workman was aware of the account holder’s death or that he had any connivance in the withdrawal of the amount from the account of the deceased woman.
The Tribunal, after assessing both oral and documentary evidence on record, concluded that the departmental enquiry had not been conducted fairly or in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and therefore ordered the reinstatement of the Workman with 50 per cent of the back wages. The Bank challenged the award and submitted that the Workman had admitted his role initially and that the inquiry had followed the principles of natural justice.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner and in conformity with the principles of natural justice since no specific pleading regarding the fairness of the departmental inquiry was available in the written statement filed by the Bank. The Court noted that the materials on record were insufficient to hold the Workman guilty of any alleged misconduct, and no substantial evidence was brought on record to prove that the Workman had been involved in the illegal withdrawal.
The Court observed that, according to the written statement filed, the officers involved in allowing the withdrawal were inflicted with minor penalties. However, in the absence of any clinching material showing the Workman’s involvement in the withdrawal of cash, he was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service, which raised doubts about the fairness of the enquiry conducted against him. The Court noted that there was no evidence showing the Workman was given a chance to respond before being dismissed and records showed that he helped recover funds withdrawn from a deceased person’s account, which alone did not prove he connived with the deceased’s grandson.
The Court held that the award passed by the Tribunal was not required to be interfered with. Further, since the Workman had already attained the age of superannuation, his reinstatement was not feasible, therefore, the Court modified the Tribunal’s relief of reinstatement to compensation and directed the Management to pay Rs 5 lakh to the Workman as a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, along with 50 per cent of back wages, within two months.
[State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2627, decided on 19-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice K.R. Mohapatra
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate being assisted by K.T. Mudali, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Durga Prasanna Das, Advocate, for Opposite Party 1
