Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit Vs. Jagdishchandra & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1395 of 2001.
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7600 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2000 of the Madhya Pra-desh High Court in W.P. No. 1684 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7600 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2000 of the Madhya Pra-desh High Court in W.P. No. 1684 of 1994)
Petitioner: Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit
Respondent: Jagdishchandra & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1395 of 2001.
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7600 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2000 of the Madhya Pra-desh High Court in W.P. No. 1684 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7600 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2000 of the Madhya Pra-desh High Court in W.P. No. 1684 of 1994)
Judges: D. P. MOHAPATRA & S. N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 21, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. A. K. Chitale, Senior Advocate, Mr. Niraj Sharma and Mrs. Shilpa Chitale, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. S. V. Deshpande, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 55(2) – Termination of service – Suit for setting aside the order of termination – Services of employee of Co-operative Bank terminated on the ground of embezzlement of Bank money – Assistant Registrar setting aside termination for want of enquiry before termination and ordering reinstatement without back wages _ On appeal Board of Revenue awarding back wages – Legality. Held, termination order rightly set aside for want of enquiry before termination. Award of back wages by Board not correct in the circumstances of the case.
Held:
In our view the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was correct. On facts it had been found that the respondent no.1 had embezzled certain monies. The monies were returned by him only after the show cause notice was issued to him. His termination was set aside only on technical grounds inasmuch as no inquiry was conducted. Under such circumstances the Assistant Registrar correctly did not Award any back wages. In our view, on the facts of this case, the order directing payment of back wages cannot be sustained. Accordingly we maintain the order of reinstatement but set aside that portion of the order which directs payment of back wages. (Paras 7,8)
JUDGEMENT:
S.N. VARIAVA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. This appeal is against an order dated 18th January, 2000.
4. Briefly stated that facts are as follows :
Respondent no. 1 was employed by the appellant – Bank as a Samiti Sevak. A show cause notice was issued to him to explain certain financial irregularities and embezzlement of monies by not depos-iting loan amounts recovered from the members. On receipt of the show cause notice respondent no.1 made goods to the Bank the amounts. Respondent no. 1 did not reply to the show cause notice. Services of the respondent no. 1 were, therefore,, terminated on 10th August, 1977.
5. Respondent no.1 filed a suit under Section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for setting aside the order of dismissal. Respondent no. 1 claimed the reinstatement with back wages. The Assistant Registrar held on evidence that the respondent no. 1 was guilty of the conduct alleged. However, the Assistant Registrar noted that there had been no inquiry before services were terminated. The Assistant Registrar there-fore declared the dismissal as illegal and directed reinstatement but without back wages. On appeal by the appellants the order of reinstatement without back wages was maintained.
6. On further appeal to the Board of Revenue it was held that the respondent no. 1 was entitled to back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18th January, 2000. It was held that once it was held that serv-ices were terminated unlawfully then as a necessary consequence the employee would be entitled to back wages.
7. In our view the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was correct. On facts it had been found that the respondent no.1 had embezzled certain monies. The monies were returned by him only after the show cause notice was issued to him. His termination was set aside only on technical grounds inasmuch as no inquiry was conducted. Under such circumstances the Assistant Registrar correctly did not Award any back wages. In our view, on the facts of this case, the order directing payment of back wages cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly we maintain the order of reinstatement but set aside that portion of the order which directs payment of back wages.
9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. This appeal is against an order dated 18th January, 2000.
4. Briefly stated that facts are as follows :
Respondent no. 1 was employed by the appellant – Bank as a Samiti Sevak. A show cause notice was issued to him to explain certain financial irregularities and embezzlement of monies by not depos-iting loan amounts recovered from the members. On receipt of the show cause notice respondent no.1 made goods to the Bank the amounts. Respondent no. 1 did not reply to the show cause notice. Services of the respondent no. 1 were, therefore,, terminated on 10th August, 1977.
5. Respondent no.1 filed a suit under Section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for setting aside the order of dismissal. Respondent no. 1 claimed the reinstatement with back wages. The Assistant Registrar held on evidence that the respondent no. 1 was guilty of the conduct alleged. However, the Assistant Registrar noted that there had been no inquiry before services were terminated. The Assistant Registrar there-fore declared the dismissal as illegal and directed reinstatement but without back wages. On appeal by the appellants the order of reinstatement without back wages was maintained.
6. On further appeal to the Board of Revenue it was held that the respondent no. 1 was entitled to back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18th January, 2000. It was held that once it was held that serv-ices were terminated unlawfully then as a necessary consequence the employee would be entitled to back wages.
7. In our view the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was correct. On facts it had been found that the respondent no.1 had embezzled certain monies. The monies were returned by him only after the show cause notice was issued to him. His termination was set aside only on technical grounds inasmuch as no inquiry was conducted. Under such circumstances the Assistant Registrar correctly did not Award any back wages. In our view, on the facts of this case, the order directing payment of back wages cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly we maintain the order of reinstatement but set aside that portion of the order which directs payment of back wages.
9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
