Embezzlement Of Funds In Bank Is Serious, Termination Justified: Punjab & Haryana HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was employed at a bank. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him for embezzlement of ₹500 from a customer's bank account. It resulted in his dismissal from service by order dated 07.01.2003. The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, but his claim was rejected by Award dated 01.04.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the Labour Court ignored the fact that the punishment of dismissal imposed was disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. Further that the report given by the Enquiry Officer proving the allegations against the petitioner was not based upon sufficient evidence. It was further submitted that the Labour Court should have evaluated as to whether the charges were proved on the basis of sufficient evidence or the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner was valid or was disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. Therefore, it was urged that the dismissal order and the Award should be set aside.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the allegations of misconduct were alleged against the petitioner and were proved in the departmental proceedings. Further the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing, then order of punishment dated 07.01.2003 was passed. Further it was contended that the claim of the petitioner that punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges alleged had rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, the Award dated 01.04.2019 may kindly be upheld.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner had challenged the dismissal order dated 07.01.2003 on the ground that the evidence recorded during the departmental enquiry was insufficient to sustain the charges of embezzlement. The Court held that in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot re-evaluate the sufficiency of evidence, as long as some evidence exists on record to support the findings. The Court emphasized that judicial review in such cases is limited to instances where the findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence at all.

The case of State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh was relied upon wherein it was held that judicial review is permissible in cases where the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse in nature. The Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 226, courts cannot act as appellate bodies and interfere with factual findings unless there is no evidence, or procedural irregularity.

It was further observed by the court that the Labour Court had carefully examined the proceedings of the enquiry and rightly concluded that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that ₹500 had been embezzled from a customer's account, and it was supported by evidence on record.

With respect to the contention of disproportionate punishment, it was held by the court that embezzlement of funds in a banking institution is a serious charge. Even though the amount was small and later refunded, that did not wipe out the misconduct.

The case of Union of India vs. Const. Sunil Kumar was relied upon wherein it was held that courts can interfere in cases where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Supreme Court held that judicial review of disciplinary punishment under Articles 226, 227, or 32 of the Constitution is limited and permissible only when the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, perverse, or irrational. If a penalty is found disproportionate, the High Court must remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration.

It was held by the Court that there was nothing arbitrary or unfair in the decision of the employer to dismiss the petitioner. The punishment of dismissal imposed was found to be not disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved. Thus the Labour Court's award was found to be legal, justified, and well-reasoned.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : Amrik Dass Bhatti vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh & Another

Case No. : CWP-15140-2019

Counsel for the Petitioner : Amarjit Singh, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Saurav Verma, Advocate with Preeti Grover, Advocate