Kendriya Bank Mariyadit Vs. Jagdishchandra & Ors  Insc 97 (21 February 2001)
Mohapatra & S.N. Variava. S. N. Variava, J.
Appeal is against an Order dated 18th January, 2000. Breifly stated that facts are as follows:
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 depositing loan amounts recovered from the members. On receipt
of the show cause notice Respondent No.1 made good 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. 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 therefore
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.
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 services were terminated unlawfully then as a necessary consequence the
employee would be entitled to back wages.
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 facts of this case, the order directing
payment of back wages cannot be sustained.
we maintain the order of reinstatement but set aside that portion of the Order
which directs payment of back wages.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
shall be no Order as to costs.