Ahmedabad: Abused your boss can be charged your work.
Bank officers lost their jobs for calling branch managers, a criminal and the Labor Court and the Gujarat High Court had upheld the termination, by holding that the sentence was commensurate on charges.
The case involved Harshad Dave, which was appointed as Caci’s backup at the Bank of India Sardhar branch in 1973.
Then, he was confirmed as a casir staff and posted in the Kasturbadham branch in Rajkot.
He didn’t seem to get along with branch managers and on February 21, 2002, Dave discussed his manger as a ‘criminal’.
The branch manager complained about this error to his superiors.
The manager also complained about the alleged deviation and Dave carelessness.
Management conducted an investigation against Dave for calling his boss an criminal, making payments reduced to customers but the number concerned was only between Rs 10 and Rs 50, and the third charge was that he was careless and irresponsible in his behavior and the days of today’s task.
He was accused of writing the number in various languages ​​- Hindi, Gujarati and England.
The request proved all the costs and discipline authorities ordered that Dave’s services ended in July 2003.
Dave rushed to the labor court concerned, claiming that the accusations were flattened reckless and he had a record of stainless services.
Request for investigation and cessation is Mala Fide, which is claimed.
However, the case was dismissed by the Labor Court in 2011.
Dave moved HC in 2012, questioning the investigation and results and the proportion of punishment.
A single judge bench rejected the petition in 2012.
Dave challenged this command in front of the division bench, before the Desai advocate filed that the investigation proved the three accusations and previous orders upholding Dave’s removal was justified.
After hearing this case, the Judicial Judgment of Kothari and Justice BN Karia enforced cessation and said, “The punishment ordered by the Discipline Authority is commensurate with the allegations flattened to the original applicant and revenue does not apply the allegations of the reverse allegations …”