http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1395  of  2001

PETITIONER: ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARIYADIT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAGDISHCHANDRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/02/2001

BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & S.N. Variava.

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Leave granted.

Heard parties.

   This  Appeal  is  against an Order dated  18th  January, 2000.  Breifly 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 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.

   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 services were terminated  unlawfully then  as  a  necessary  consequence the  employee  would  be entitled to back wages.

   In  our view the Order passed by the Assistant Registrar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.

   Accordingly  we maintain the order of reinstatement  but set aside that portion of the Order which directs payment of back wages.

   The  Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no Order as to costs.

(D.P. MOHAPATRA)

(S. N. VARIAVA)

February 21, 2001.