CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus DRAGENDRA SINGH JADON

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 02-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS
v.
DRAGENDRA SINGH JADON
(Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2022)
AUGUST 02, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service law – Res Judicata – Applicability of – Respondent
was appointed to the post of agricultural assistant in the appellant-
Bank – Respondent was served a chargesheet alleging that he had
impersonated his brother in a written test conducted by Bank –
Disciplinary Enquiry held and thereafter services of the respondent
was terminated by the appellant in the year 1982 – Respondent
raised an industrial dispute – Tribunal by award dated 2008 held
that charge of impersonation was not proved and dismissal was
unjustified, thus reinstated respondent but without back wages –
Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court in the year 2009
challenging the award of tribunal insofar as relates to the denial of
back wages – Appellants also filed a writ petition before the High
Court in the year 2009 challenging the award so far relates to the
reinstatement of services of respondent – High Court by a common
judgment dismissed both the writ petitions – In compliance with the
judgment of High Court appellant reinstated the respondent – In
2013 respondent filed another writ petition to reinstate the
respondent to the post of Agricultural Finance officer and also for
the fixation of pay and seniority – Appellant objected that the writ
petition is barred by the principles of res judicata – High Court by
judgment dated 2015 held that the appellant shall be entitled for
all the benefits upon reinstatement except back wages – Writ appeal
was dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, appellant-bank
contended that principles of res judicata applied to the writ
proceedings – On appeal, held: The issue in the earlier writ petition
was regarding legality of the award – However, the question in the
second writ petition was, whether, for the purposes of seniority and
fixation of pay, the respondent was to be treated as a newly appointed
employee – Matter-in-issue in both the writ petitions is different
therefore principles of res judicata inapplicable – No infirmity with
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 93
93
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench
of the High Court – Appeal dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5036
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2017 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No. 310 of 2015.
Debal Banerji, Sr. Adv., Ms. Meera Mathur, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Prashant Shukla, Anushree Shukla, Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Mayank
Gautam, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 3rd April
2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Gwalior dismissing Writ Appeal No. 310 of 2015 filed by the Appellants
against an order dated 7th August 2015, passed by the Single Bench,
allowing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
being Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2013, filed by the Respondent.
3. On or about 23rd April 1975, the Respondent was appointed to
the post of Agricultural Assistant in the Appellant-Bank and posted at its
Kailaras Branch in Madhya Pradesh.
4. Over four years after his appointment, the Respondent was
served with a chargesheet dated 18th September 1979 alleging that he
had impersonated his brother in a Written Test conducted by the Bank
through the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Lucknow on 6th May
1979 and answered the questions on his behalf. Pursuant to the
chargesheet, Disciplinary Enquiry was held after which the services of
the Respondent were terminated by the Appellant-Bank by an order
dated 29th January 1982.
5. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute. By Notification
No. L-12012/135/84-D.II(A) dated 7th April 1988, the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour referred to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
the dispute of “Whether the action of the management of the Central
Bank of India, Gwalior in dismissing from service Shri Dragendra
Singh Jadon, Agricultural Assistant with effect from 29.01.1982 is
justified? If no, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
6. By an Award dated 10th September 2008, the Tribunal held
that the Appellant-Bank was n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.