2022 (1) TMI 756 - SC - Indian Laws

Levy of penalty of dismissal from service - Fraud by the Bank Clerk - industrial dispute - Breach of duty as a custodian of public money - dishonesty, fraud or manipulation of documents - standards of proof of criminal proceedings to disciplinary proceedings as the misconduct by an employee in disciplinary proceedings - probabilities and preponderance of evidence - HELD THAT - The High Court has fallen into an error in coming to the conclusion in the impugned judgment and directing, once again, the matter to be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to now seek opinion of a hand writing expert. There are certain inherent legal limitations to the scrutiny of an award of a Tribunal by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If there is no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record, there is no occasion for the High Court to get into the merits of the controversy as an appellate court. That too, on the aspect of an opinion formed in respect of two sets of signatures where the inquiry was held by an officer of the bank who came to an opinion on a bare comparison of the signatures that there is a difference in the same. It has been looked at from the perspective of a banker s eye . This is, of course, apart from the testimony of the sister-in- law of the respondent. The High Court appears to have applied the test of criminal proceedings to departmental proceedings while traversing the path of requirement of a hand writing expert to be called for the said purpose - even the aspect of the other charges could not have been brushed aside in the manner it purports to. On the matter being remitted back, two witnesses deposed as to these aspects, being MW-3 and MW-4. The respondent was a clerk-cum-cashier. It is a post of confidence. The respondent breached that confidence. In fact, the respondent breached the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as of the bank, making it hardly a case for interference either on law or on moral grounds. The punishment imposed on the respondent could also hardly be said to be disproportionate. The conduct established of the respondent did not entitle him to continue in service. The challenge to the award of the Industrial Tribunal is repelled - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of departmental proceedings and principles of natural justice.
2. Evaluation of evidence and standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings.
3. Role of handwriting expert in determining forgery allegations.
4. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Departmental Proceedings and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant-Bank initiated departmental proceedings against the respondent for various charges, including breach of duty, dishonesty, and fraud. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the Bank's decision, but the Allahabad High Court found five charges unproven and remitted two charges back to the Tribunal. The High Court's decision was stayed by the Supreme Court on 5.3.2019. The respondent was initially suspended and issued a chargesheet, which he denied. An inquiry officer was appointed, and the inquiry concluded with all charges proven. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent, and the appellate authority upheld this decision. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Tribunal initially found a violation of natural justice but later allowed the Bank to prove charges through evidence, which led to the Tribunal's decision against the respondent.

2. Evaluation of Evidence and Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings:
The High Court applied the standard of proof of criminal proceedings to disciplinary proceedings, which was contested by the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized that misconduct in disciplinary proceedings should be evaluated based on probabilities and preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tribunal had found sufficient evidence of the respondent's fraud and forgery, including the testimony of Mrs. Meera Srivastava, which was clear and unambiguous. The High Court's requirement for a handwriting expert was deemed unnecessary, as the Inquiry Officer's comparison of signatures and the testimony of Mrs. Meera Srivastava were sufficient.

3. Role of Handwriting Expert in Determining Forgery Allegations:
The High Court directed the matter to be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to seek the opinion of a handwriting expert. The Supreme Court found this unnecessary, as the Inquiry Officer had already compared the signatures from a "banker's eye" and found discrepancies. Additionally, Mrs. Meera Srivastava's testimony corroborated the forgery allegations. The Supreme Court cited Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, stating that courts can compare writings and form their own opinions under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, without necessarily relying on expert evidence.

4. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed:
The High Court's opinion that only charges 4 and 5 required further evidence was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that evidence was led for all charges, and the respondent's conduct, including insubordination and forgery, was proven. The respondent's actions breached the trust of both the Bank and his sister-in-law, justifying the punishment of dismissal. The Supreme Court concluded that the punishment was not disproportionate and that the respondent's conduct did not warrant continued service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment dated 31.5.2018 and upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 21.2.2013. The appeal was allowed, and the challenge to the Tribunal's award was repelled, with each party bearing its own costs.