WP/1518/2004 of The Bank of Baroda, Vs The Presiding Officer, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

One Sri P.Ramaiah was working as Head Cashier in GunturBranch of the petitioner-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings wereinitiated against him alleging that he was responsible for cashshortage of Rs.26,000/- and that he resorted to acts ofmisconduct. After issuing notice and conducting departmentalenquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated22.11.1999, imposing the punishment of stoppage of oneincrement with cumulative effect and withdrawing the specialallowance. The employee approached the Bank of BarodaEmployees’ Union, respondent No.2 herein, which in turnespoused to his cause with the Government. The same resulted ina reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt, Hyderabad. It was taken up as I.D.No.9 of 2001. Thereference was as to whether the punishment imposed against theemployee was proper. The Tribunal passed an award, dated31.10.2001, upholding the punishment of stoppage of increment,but directing that the special allowance be paid to the employee upto 01.07.2002. The petitioner feels aggrieved by that portion of theaward.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner andthe learned counsel for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No.2

In the departmental enquiry, the allegation against theemployee was proved. The disciplinary authority imposed thepunishment as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Theappropriate Government made a reference to the Tribunal.

In its award, the Tribunal found that there was justificationfor imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment withcumulative effect. However, it took exception to the withdrawal ofspecial allowance. The special allowance is paid to an employeewhenever he discharges the duties of a Cashier. It is only whenthe employee has been entrusted with the duties of Cashier that hewould become eligible tos be paid the special allowance. It cannotbe directed to be paid independent of the nature of duties. Further,the Tribunal did not offer any justification for directing that theallowance be paid up to July, 2002.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the portion of theaward which directed payment of special allowance to theemployee i.e. P.Ramaiah, is set side. There shall be no order as tocosts.

_______________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

Dt: 31.12.2010.kdl