Mon. Nov 30th, 2020

M.K.Gupta vs Central Bank Of India on 11 June, 2018

2 min read

2. WP(C) 18116/2004, by the Bank prays that the impugned
Award be set aside and the dismissal, of the workman’s services by
the Bank, upheld. Per contra, WP(C) No.12759/2005, by the
workman, seeks to assert his entitlement to reinstatement, ab initio,
with full back wages.

3. I have heard Ms. Rachna Gupta, and Mr. Paranjay Chopra,
learned counsel appearing for the Bank and workman at length and
perused the record.

4. The controversy is brief, and emanates, essentially, from
charge-sheet, dated 8th August, 1983, issued to the workman by the
Bank. The charge-sheet alleged that, on 11th February, 1983, the
workman (who was employed as Assistant Cashier), was instructed to
effect cash transfer of ₹ 3.5 lakhs from the Lajpat Nagar Branch to the
Nehru Place Branch of the Bank. However, it was alleged, having
taken delivery of the said cash from the Chief Cashier, the workman,
instead of placing the cash in a proper steel box “as per instructions

W.P. (C) 18116/2004 & W.P. (C) 12759/2005 Page 2 of 22
laid down”, unauthorisedly placed the cash in a briefcase, which was
left, by him, in the cabin of the Chief Cashier, from where it went
missing. As such, the charge-sheet alleged that the workman had
failed to account for the said cash of ₹ 3.5 lakhs which was entrusted
to his charge. Asserting that the workman was expected to ensure the
safety of the cash and to remit it securely to the Nehru Place Branch of
the Bank, which, owing to his failure to comply with proper norms
and laid down procedure governing of cash, could not be effected, it
was alleged that the Bank had suffered serious financial loss. As a
result, the charge-sheet alleged that the workman had acted in a
manner prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, and that he was guilty
of gross misconduct within the meaning of 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite
Settlement, governing relations between the Bank and its employees.
The workman, therefore, was given an opportunity to respond thereto.
It is important to note that the charge-sheet does not, expressly or
impliedly, doubt the bonafides of the workman, or attribute any
ulterior motive to him.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply