to the Deputy Regional Manager of the Bank. After
receiving the complaint of the customer, the Bank, upon
verifying the allegations, issued a letter to the private respondent
to submit his explanation. The explanation submitted by the
private respondent was not found satisfactory and, therefore, the
Bank issued a charge memo on 03.11.2014 to the private
respondent. He further submits that upon receiving the charge
memo, the private respondent did not file any show cause
against the said charge sheet. However, the private respondent
submitted his reply on 08.06.2015 when the enquiry was already
over. He was also provided an opportunity to defend himself
and to lead his evidence. The Enquiry Officer initiated the
inquiry and, after granting several dates and issuing notice to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
private respondent, in which the private respondent appeared,
despite being given full opportunity, the private respondent did
not produce any witness. However, the private respondent
produced 15 documents. After going through the documents, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.06.2015, which was
communicated to the Disciplinary Authority on 23.06.2015. He
further submits that the Disciplinary Authority, after going
through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the submissions
of the private respondent in defence of the enquiry report,
passed an order on 06.08.2015 inflicting the punishment of
dismissal upon the private respondent without notice under
Clause 6(a) of the DAP for Workmen dated 10.04.2002. Counsel
further submits that the private respondent preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy General Manager of
the Bank at the Zonal Office, Patna. Upon granting opportunity,
the appellate order was passed against him and the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority was approved. Thereafter, the
private respondent preferred CWJC No. 4747 of 2016
challenging the orders passed in the departmental proceedings.
However, the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground
that the private respondent had already filed an application
before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
conciliation. Counsel further submits that the conciliation failed
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and, in terms of
letter dated 20.05.2019, he referred the dispute to the
Government. Subsequently, the Central Government, in terms of
letter dated 08.01.2021 issued by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Patna, referred the dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal, Patna. The Industrial Tribunal registered the
case bearing Reference Case No. 01(C) of 2021. He further
submits that before the Tribunal also the matter was fully
contested, however, it was decided against the Management-
Bank, against which the petitioners (Management-Bank) have
preferred the present writ petition. Counsel further submits that
at the time of passing of the order there has been a gross
violation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947) [hereinafter referred to as Act of
1947], which clearly provides that in case of dismissal of an
employee, the Tribunal is not to take evidence afresh and has to
decide the matter on the material already available on record.
Counsel further submits that the Tribunal took evidence afresh
and, without examining the evidence in its proper perspective,
illegally set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority in terms of its Award dated 20.07.2023,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
which was published in the Gazette on 23.09.2023.
