9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dismissal order based on the evidence of the Handwriting Expert. 2. Scope of judicial review by the High Court in disciplinary proceedings. 3. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the employee to defend himself. Summary: 1. Validity of the dismissal order based on the evidence of the Handwriting Expert: The employee was dismissed from service after being found responsible for unauthorized withdrawals from a customer's account. The Enquiry Officer relied on the evidence of Handwriting Expert Shri V.K. Sakhuja, who testified that the signatures on the disputed cheques were forged and matched the employee's handwriting. The employee's request for further cross-examination of the Handwriting Expert was denied. The learned Single Judge initially set aside the dismissal, questioning the credibility of the Handwriting Expert due to past adverse remarks. However, the Division Bench restored the dismissal, noting that the adverse remarks were from decades ago and did not affect the current evidence's credibility. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act allow for expert opinions and court comparisons of handwriting, respectively. The Court found no infirmity in the Handwriting Expert's report and noted that even without expert evidence, the court could compare writings to form its own opinion. 2. Scope of judicial review by the High Court in disciplinary proceedings: The Division Bench observed that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters. Its jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice principles. The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review is not akin to an appellate review and is confined to examining the decision-making process. The Court cited precedents like B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. and R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors., emphasizing that if there is some evidence to support the disciplinary authority's findings, the court should not re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. 3. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the employee to defend himself: The employee argued that he was denied fair play, including the opportunity to be represented by an advocate and access to certain documents. The Supreme Court found these claims unsubstantiated, noting that the presenting officer was not an advocate, and the employee, being a trade union activist, was well-versed in service jurisprudence and effectively cross-examined witnesses. The Court also dismissed the employee's reliance on a Forensic Science Laboratory report that did not give a clean chit but merely stated that no definite opinion could be formed. The Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the employee's lapses, even if not criminally intended, warranted dismissal due to the nature of his duties involving public money. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to restore the employee's dismissal, finding no merit in the appeal. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the adequacy of the evidence and procedures followed in the enquiry.
|
