Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Deoram S. Wayal, was employed as a peon with the Central Bank of India from 22 December 1971 and was promoted to clerk on 14 July 1988. He was chargesheeted on 2 June 1993 and 16 August 1993. The charges that were held proved were: (i) while working at Peth Branch, during the period from 8 March 1975 to 11 July 1988, he misused his position by deriving pecuniary benefit through a loan of Rs.6,400/- allowed to one Shri Bala Namdeo Wayal on 28 October 1983 for purchase of an oil engine; and (ii) he issued a 'No Due Certificate' in favour of Bank of Baroda on 21 June 1990 in the name of Bala Namdeo Wayal, though there was a debit balance of Rs.8,769.84 in the loan account. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty. The petitioner was discharged from service. The discharge was challenged, leading to a reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai. The tribunal upheld the discharge, holding the enquiry fair and the findings supported by evidence. The petitioner challenged the award by way of a writ petition. The High Court found that the finding of guilt on the first charge was perverse as there was no evidence. The complaint by Bala Namdeo Wayal, a relative, was made eight years after the loan and two months after full repayment, and Bala was never examined. The only evidence was the complaint itself, which was not substantiated. The second charge regarding the 'No Due Certificate' was also not supported by evidence. The court held that the tribunal's award was based on no evidence and was perverse. The court set aside the award and the discharge order, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of discharge till reinstatement, with a direction to pay the back wages within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Perverse Finding - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)(d) - The court examined whether the Industrial Tribunal's award upholding the discharge of a workman was sustainable when the finding of guilt was based on no evidence. The court held that a finding unsupported by any evidence is perverse and liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5) B) Evidence Law - No Evidence Rule - Departmental Enquiry - The court considered the principle that a finding of guilt in a departmental enquiry must be based on some evidence. Where the only evidence is a complaint by a relative made eight years after the incident and after full repayment, and the complainant is not examined, the finding is perverse. (Paras 3-4) C) Industrial Law - Discharge from Service - Punishment - The court held that when the charges are not proved, the discharge order cannot be sustained. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the finding of guilt in a departmental enquiry, based on no evidence, can be sustained in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the order of discharge dated 26 February 1994. The court directed the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement. The back wages were to be paid within three months from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Perverse finding
- No evidence
- Discharge from service
- Departmental enquiry
- Industrial Tribunal
- Writ jurisdiction
- Central Government Industrial Tribunal
- Bipartite Settlement
- Service law
