2015 (4) TMI 663 - HC - Indian Laws

Tribunal decision affirmed on dismissal grounds. Limited judicial review under Article 226. No costs awarded.

RAJENDER SINGH Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the petition and affirming the justification for the petitioner's dismissal based on the ... Charges of misconduct - Dismissal from service - Misbehaviour with female employee of the bank - Held that:- decision of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In Jai Krishna Mandal (2010 (8) TMI 889 - SUPREME COURT), it was an admitted position that there was 'deep enmity' between the family of prosecutrix and the appellants therein on account of a dispute over a piece of land. The prosecutrix had alleged that she had been raped by the appellants and one other person. The medical report and the evidence of the doctor did not support the prosecution and the doctor had deposed that there was no evidence of rape or injury on the prosecutrix. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction. - Tribunal noted that Ms Sunita Jain could not recollect the exact dates of the incidents and held that she was not expected to do so after a long time gap. In my view, although there is inconsistency in the testimony of Ms Sunita Jain and her complaint, the same is not sufficient for her testimony to be rejected in toto. The admitted facts are that the petitioner had tendered a written apology for his behavior. Although, the petitioner had immediately filed a complaint that his apology was forcibly extracted from him, the same must be discounted. There is no explanation as to why Ms Sunita Jain's husband would come to the branch office to extract an apology from the petitioner. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that it takes a certain amount of courage for a lady to come and depose regarding the harassment meted out to her and such testimony should be given due weightage. - Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion. It is well established that this court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with the findings of fact unless the same are perverse or based on no evidence at all. - No infirmity in impugned award - Decided against Petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry.2. Legality and justification of the termination of the petitioner's services without notice.3. Consideration of facts in their entirety by the Tribunal.4. Reliance on testimony and evidence.5. Allegations of conspiracy and malafides.6. Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings.7. Consequences of vitiated enquiry proceedings.8. Jurisdiction and scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Fairness and Propriety of the Domestic Enquiry:The Tribunal initially found that the enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondent bank were unfair, unjust, and violative of principles of natural justice, thus vitiating the enquiry. Despite this, the Tribunal allowed fresh evidence to be presented by both parties, leading to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct were proved against the petitioner.2. Legality and Justification of Termination Without Notice:The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the petitioner based on the fresh evidence presented. The petitioner's contention that the Tribunal should have reinstated him once the enquiry was found to be vitiated was rejected. The court emphasized that even if the enquiry is vitiated, the Tribunal can still allow the employer to justify the dismissal through fresh evidence.3. Consideration of Facts in Their Entirety by the Tribunal:The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the facts in their entirety and segregated the issue of sexual molestation from other disputes. However, the court found that the Tribunal had evaluated the evidence comprehensively, including the petitioner's defense and allegations of conspiracy.4. Reliance on Testimony and Evidence:The Tribunal relied on the testimony of Ms. Sunita Jain, despite inconsistencies and improvements over time. The court held that the inconsistencies were not sufficient to reject her testimony entirely, especially considering the petitioner's written apology for his behavior.5. Allegations of Conspiracy and Malafides:The petitioner claimed a conspiracy involving the Regional Manager and Ms. Sunita Jain to remove him from service. The Tribunal found no evidence to support this allegation. The court concurred, noting the lack of material evidence to substantiate the conspiracy theory.6. Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings:The court reiterated that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is based on the preponderance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tribunal's findings were based on this standard, which is different from criminal proceedings.7. Consequences of Vitiated Enquiry Proceedings:The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should not have relied on the records of the vitiated enquiry. The court rejected this, noting that the Tribunal had considered fresh evidence from both parties. The principle that the Tribunal can allow fresh evidence even after declaring an enquiry vitiated was upheld, referencing precedents such as Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Divyash Pandit v. NCCBM.8. Jurisdiction and Scope of Interference by the High Court:The court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Tribunal's findings of fact unless they were perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's decision was found to be based on a thorough evaluation of evidence, and no procedural infirmity or violation of natural justice was identified.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's award that the petitioner's dismissal was justified based on the evidence presented. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No order as to costs was made.