"Use Of Bank's Seal Unauthorisedly A Matter Of Enormous Gravity": Delhi High Court Upholds Workman's Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement

The Delhi High Court has upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to a workman, guilty of forgery, fabrication of bank statements and other forms of misconduct, observing that the use of a bank's seal unauthorisedly is a matter of enormous gravity which cannot be simply brushed under the carpet.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also observed that forging the signatures of a colleague or even turning a blind eye to such forgery by a third party, and reaping benefits from the same is wholly impermissible.

The Court allowed the petition filed by Punjab and Sind Bank challenging the Award dated 9th October, 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court wherein the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the Respondent Workman was unjustified and unwarranted.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court added thus:

"Workman would henceforth be entitled to only such benefits as per the order dated 31st January, 2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding compulsory retirement which is upheld. All pending applications are also disposed of."

The respondent Workman had worked with the Petitioner Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier for over 27 years. On 4th January, 2005, the Petitioner Bank had served a Charge Sheet on the Workman, alleging that the Workman had forged the signature of the then Branch Manager in order to avail a housing loan from IDBI Bank.

It was thus the case of the Petitioner Bank that the abovementioned acts and omissions tantamount to gross misconduct in terms of Clause 5(j) and 5(m) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002 with the Workers' Union.

On the other hand, the Workman had denied the allegations and blamed the agent of IDBI Bank. However, the Disciplinary Authority found the said reply to be unsatisfactory and decided to hold Departmental Enquiry in terms of the Bipartite Settlement. Accordingly, the Petitioner Bank had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Clause 6(c) of the Bipartite Settlement, as circulated by the Bank.

Vide order dated 19th September, 2016, the CGIT had decided the preliminary issue which was framed on 2nd March, 2009, in respect of legality and validity of the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Petitioner Bank. The CGIT had held that the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Petitioner Bank was not legal, just and fair.

Hearing the parties and analyzing the material on record, the Court was of the view that the nature of the documents which were forged, fabricated and manipulated were official in nature.

"The person who would have derived benefit of all these documents is the Workman, and no one else. The said computerized print outs of the bank statements could not have been taken out by any third party without the knowledge and deliberate connivance of the Workman," the Court said.

The Court was therefore of the opinion that the CGIT had completely erred in holding that such manipulation, forgery and fabrication of bank statements could not be construed to be grave misconduct on the part of the Workman.

"In the present case, the Workman who is a bank employee, has not merely forged, fabricated and manipulated documents on record but has also issued his own cheque as a deposit for sanctioning of the loan with the IDBI Bank. The Workman was the only person who benefitted from availing the loan," the Court said.

The Court said that such conduct on behalf of a bank employee cannot by any stretch of imagination be called as misconduct not deserving punishment.

"The Workman cannot escape the consequences of filing such documents simply by stating that the said acts of forgery were committed by an agent of IDBI. The criminal case against the said third party has also been closed. Thus, the Workman's allegations in that respect do not deserve to be given any credence," the Court said.

It added "The Workman cannot argue that his serious acts deserve to be either ignored or condoned. A bank employee is aware of the procedures and rules. The use of a bank's seal unauthorisedly is a matter of enormous gravity which cannot be simply brushed under the carpet. Forging the signatures of a colleague or even turning a blind eye to such forgery by a third party, and reaping benefits from the same is wholly impermissible."

With the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the plea of the petitioner bank and the same was disposed of.

Title: THE CHIEF MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK v. SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH NANDA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 104

Click Here To Read Order