STATE BANK OF INDIA versus TARUN KUMAR BANERJEE AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 19-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
ST A TE BANK OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
T ARUN KUMAR BANERJEE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Charge sheet issued to a Bank employee 
that he retained the excess amount tendered by a customer of the Bank to c 
him in his capacity as Head Cashier, with a criminal intent to misappropriate 
the same-Domestic enquiry-Show cause notice~ubsequent dismissal from 
service-Industrial dispute-Reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal-
Tribunal setting aside the order of dismissal placing reliance on non-
examination of complainant, non-production of money, non-production of D 
confessional statements and non-production of any evidence which may have 
been available-Propriety of-Held, these circumstances are irrelevant and 
the Tribunal could not have placed reliance on the same to reach the 
conclusion it did-The charge of misconduct against the employee stood 
proved to the hilt by the evidence tendered by the two witnesses who actually 
saw the incident having taken place and the Tribunal could not have taken E 
any other view. 
Section 11 A-Reappraisal of evidence-Position explained 
Respondent no. 1 in his capacity as Head Cashier in the appellant Bank, 
received from a customer of the appellant Bank a sum of Rs. 3002.40 p. F 
along with two draft applications each for Rs. 1001.20 p. Even though 
respondent no. 1 received excess amount of Rs. 1000 over Rs. 2002. 40p, he 
did not refund the same and retained the said money with him with the 
intention of misappropriating the same. Thereafter, when the said customer 
returned in the afternoon on the same day and demanded the said amount of 
Rs. 1000 handed over to respondent no.I in excess, he flatly denied. On a G 
report being made by the said customer to the Branch Manager, the matter 
was enquired into. However, a preliminary search failed to trace the amount 
When a physical search of all the employees was being conducted, the 
respondent no.l threw away the said amount of Rs. 1000 on the floor which 
was witnessed by the Accountant of the appellant Bank. The possession of H 
""' 
313 
~ 
---
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
·A the said amount was taken by the Accounti,mt and he questioned respondent 
no. 1 about the same. Subsequently, a statement in writing duly signed by 
the first respondent was taken and the matter reported to the Head Office, 
Respondent no. 1 was thereafter put under suspension under instructions 
from Head Office. A charge-sheet was issued to respondent no.I but he denied 
. '· 
B 
all the charges levelled against him and claimed to be innocent. 
A domestic enquiry was held against him and three witnesses were 
examined. Respondent no. 1 did not adduce any evidence nor examined himself. 
On the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry he was found 
guilty of the charges and was asked to show cause as to why an appropriate 
c punishment should not be imposed upon him ; he was also heard. Subsequently 
he was dismissed from service. 
' 
On this, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the 
Central Industrial Tribunal and it held that the domestic enquiry conducted 
.. 
~as just, fair and proper. However, on examination of the material on record, 
D the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the finding of guilt against 
the first respondent was not just on the evidence on record and, therefore, 
set aside the same. This was challenged in a writ petition which was allowed 
by a Single Judge of the High Court. On a further appeal, Division Bench 
of the High Coui:t held that the Single Judge could not have interfered with 
E 
the award made by the Tribunal and set aside the order of the Single Judge 
restoring the award made by the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal: 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the evidence of three 
witnesses recorded at enquiry being sufficient to record the guilt of 
respondent no.I, other evidence was ignored and irrelevant considerations 
F such as non-examination of complainant-customer, non-production of money 
and non-availability of other evidence not on record was taken note of by the 
Tribunal. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal was vitiated and that the Division 
Bench of High Court too fell in the same error. 
On behalf of the 1st respondent, it was contended that holding the 
G conclusion of the inquiry officer to be correct even if evidence was withheld

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