ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS.versusKRISHAN PAL SINGH

204                      [2021]
              SUPREME COURT     6 S.C.R. 204
                             REPORTS                      [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A                      ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS.
                                      v.
                           KRISHAN PAL SINGH
                        (Civil Appeal No. 5808 of 2021)
B                           SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
          [R. SUBHASH REDDY AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
             Service Law – Dismissal – Monetary compensation in lieu
      of reinstatement – Respondent was Clerk-cum-Cashier in appellant-
      Bank – Burning incident of Bank records – Suspecting complicity
C     of respondent, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary
      proceedings initiated against him – On completion of enquiry,
      respondent was dismissed from service – He raised industrial
      dispute – Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court held that
      misconduct alleged against respondent was not proved, but a case
      was made out by the management of loss of confidence, and
D
      accordingly ordered payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu
      of reinstatement – Respondent filed Writ Petition – High Court
      ordered reinstatement of respondent with all consequential benefits
      – On appeal, held: Though, there was strong suspicion, there was
      no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of respondent –
E     Reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case,
      where termination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance with
      procedure prescribed under law – Considering that respondent was
      in effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he is
      out of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had
      attained age of superannuation, ends of justice would be met by
F     awarding him lump sum monetary compensation of Rs.15 lakhs –
      Labour Laws.
            Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD:1. The directions issued by the High Court for
      reinstatement were stayed by this Court. During the pendency
G     of these proceedings, the respondent – workman had attained
      age of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion,
      there was no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the
      workman. However, as the workman has worked only for a
      period of about six years and he has already attained the age of
H     superannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the relief
                                     204
    ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. v. KRISHAN PAL SINGH                             205


granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with full back                A
wages is not automatic in every case, where termination /
dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure
prescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in
effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he is
out of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had
attained age of superannuation, it is appropriate that ends of             B
justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary
compensation. Accordingly, it is directed that payment of lump
sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs be made to the respondent,
within a period of eight weeks. Failing to pay the same within
the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for interest @            C
6% per annum, till payment. [Para 8][207-D-F]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5808
of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2019 of the High
Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition (S/S) No.692 of         D
1998.
     Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, Madhur
Tewatia, Ravi Solanki, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Rakesh Taneja, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advs. for the Respondent.
                                                                           E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant – Bank, aggrieved
by the Order dated 25.04.2019 of the High Court of Allahabad,              F
Lucknow Bench, passed in Service Single No. 692 of 1998. By the
aforesaid order, the High Court has quashed the award dated 07.10.1997,
passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour
Court so far as it relates to refusal of reinstatement of the respondent
with back wages and issued directions, directing the appellants to
reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.                  G
      3. The sole respondent herein was appointed as Clerk-cum-
Cashier in the appellant – Allahabad Bank on 23.09.1985 and his service
was confirmed on 24.03.1986. During the year 1989, he was posted in
Aurangabad Branch, District Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. On
08.02.1989, there was fire accident in the Bank and an FIR was             H
206            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     registered with regard to burning incident of Bank records by unknown
      persons. Suspecting the complicity of the respondent, he was placed
      under suspension by order dated 13.02.1989 and disciplinary proceedings
      were initiated against him. Ultimately, on completion of enquiry, the
      respondent was dismissed from service vide Order dated 22.08.1991.
      The departmental appeal, preferred by him was rejected by Appellate
B     Authority on 27.02.1992 and further, Mercy Appeal was also rejected
      vide Order dated 27.05.1992.
             4. The respondent raised the industrial dispute and the same was
      referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour
      Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 98 of 1994. The Industrial
C     Tribunal–cum–Labour Court has passed the Award dated 07.10.1997
      and held that misconduct alleged against the respondent is not proved,
      but on the ground that a case is made out by the management of loss
      of confidence, has ordered payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- in
      lieu of reinstatement. The respondent – workman, aggrieved by the
      award of the Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, seeking
D     reinstatement with back wages, carried the matter to the High Court
      by way of Writ Petition in Service Single No. 692 of 1998. The High
      Court, by impugned Order dated 25.04.2019, has ordered reinstatement
      of the respondent with all consequential benefits. The said Order is
      subject matter of challenge in this Appeal. While issuing notice, vide
E     Order dated 23.08.2019, this Court granted interim relief against the
      direction of reinstatement with back wages, ordered by the High Court.
            5. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing
      for the appellant – Bank and Mr. Rakesh Taneja, learned counsel
      appearing for the respondent.
F            6. Order of dismissal was passed by the Bank, alleging
      involvement of the respondent in the incident relating to burning of
      relevant Bank records. One Mr. Balak Ram was prime accused in the
      aforesaid incident, and the respondent being a friend of said Mr. Balak
      Ram, was suspected on the ground that one of the witnesses namely
      Mr. Ram Singh, MW-1, examined in the disciplinary proceedings, has
G     deposed that Mr. Balak Ram and others assembled together on the date
      of incident. The Industrial Tribunal has found that though there was a
      strong suspicion, but there was no sufficient evidence to prove his
      misconduct to dismiss from service. The Industrial Tribunal has found
      that the Bank has lost confidence on the respondent and ordered
      payment of monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of
H     reinstatement. When the said award was challenged before the High
     ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. v. KRISHAN PAL SINGH                                207
               [R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

Court, it has found that suspicion, however, high may be, can under no         A
circumstances be held a substitute to legal proof. By further recording
a finding that the appellants have not challenged the award passed by
the Industrial Tribunal, has allowed the Writ Petition by directing
reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
       7. In this case, it is to be noted that the respondent was appointed    B
in the Bank as Clerk–cum– Cashier on 23.09.1985 and he was placed
under suspension on 13.02.1989 and dismissed from service vide Order
dated 22.08.1991. Including the suspension period, he was in Bank
service for about six years before dismissal. Thereafter, he was
unsuccessful before the departmental Appellate Authority and the
Industrial Tribunal ordered payment of lump sum monetary                       C
compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
       8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad for
reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019. During the
pendency of these proceedings, the respondent – workman had attained
age of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion, there was           D
no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the workman.
However, as the workman has worked only for a period of about six
years and he has already attained the age of superannuation, it is a fit
case for modification of the relief granted by the High Court. The
reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where
termination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure        E
prescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in effective
service of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of service
since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had attained age of
superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be
met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. We accordingly
direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the                  F
respondent, within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to pay
the same within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for
interest @ 6% per annum, till payment.
      9. This Civil Appeal is partly allowed. Order of the High Court
dated 25.04.2019 stands modified to the extent indicated above.                G


Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                         Appeal allowed.



                                                                               H