Service Law: Bank service – Disciplinary proceedings – Dismissal from service – Respondent employed in appellant-bank/management as a clerk-cum-cashier – A complaint was made by his sister-in-law that respondent had opened and operated saving bank account in joint name with her by forging her signatures and encashed demand draft which she had received on death of her husband – Inquiry officer opined that bare comparison of the signatures on the account opening form and withdrawal form purportedly signed by sister-in-law of respondent showed that they were different, by looking from the perspective of a “banker’s eye” and that all charges against respondent stood proved – Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service – Industrial Tribunal held that the management failed to produce original documents and most photocopies of the relevant pages were not readable and thus there was violation of rules of natural justice – However, Tribunal granted an opportunity to the management to prove the charges against the respondent – Management led evidence by producing five witnesses while respondent examined himself – Tribunal answered the reference against the respondent opining that the management was successful in establishing all the charges against him and the punishment of dismissal also was commensurate to the charges levelled and proved against him – Appellant filed writ petition before High Court – High Court allowed writ petition while remitting matter back to Industrial Tribunal in respect of charges 4 and 5 holding that when the earlier departmental proceedings were found to be violative of the principles of natural justice then no findings vis-a-vis charges 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 should have been arrived at, based on the plea that the management led evidence only in respect of charges 4 and 5 – In respect of charges
4 and 5, it was opined that on the request of the respondent, the signatures of his sister-in-law should have been got compared with her admitted signatures by an expert and then only a correct conclusion could have been arrived at and the Tribunal should have refrained from acting like an expert – On management’s appeal, held: High Court 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 – High Court opined that only charges 4 and 5 could really have been gone into by the Industrial Tribunal, which required further evidence in its opinion, of a hand writing expert – So far as the other charges were concerned, a conclusion was reached that no further evidence was led – This was neither the correct approach nor borne out of the record – In fact, evidence was led – Even earlier, the material in respect of other charges emanated from the record of the management which showed the conduct of the respondent – Thus, even the aspect of the other charges could not have been brushed aside in the manner it purported to – On the matter being remitted back, two witnesses deposed as to these aspects – Respondent was a clerk-cum-cashier – It was a post of confidence – He breached that confidence – In fact, the respondent breached the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as of the bank, and, therefore, no case was made out for interference either on law or on moral grounds – The punishment imposed on the respondent could also not be said to be disproportionate – The conduct established of the respondent did not entitle him to continue in service.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. [Para 15][255-C-D]
2. The deposition of the sister-in-law of the respondent was clear and unambiguous. She was staying in a joint family of which the respondent was a part. She unfortunately lost her husband in an accident. The two drafts were received from his employer and those drafts were kept in custody with the respondent, possibly because he was a banker and the elder brother of her deceased husband. Instead of extending the benefits of the same to her, the respondent went on a path of opening an account jointly in his and his sister-in-law’s name, presenting the drafts, and drawing the amounts with appropriation of the same to himself. His sisterin-law had not even visited the bank to sign the account opening form or the signature cards, nor had she presented the drafts or signed the encashment vouchers. In fact, it is only when she complained about not receiving the amount that the bank inquired into it and, at least, the money was transferred to her. Her crossexamination elicited nothing, nor for that matter was it put to her in cross-examination that she had ever visited the bank, opened the account or signed the encashment vouchers. The relationships in the family were not estranged nor was there any endeavour to “fix” the respondent by a relative. This evidence was enough to implicate the respondent. [Para 16][255-F-H; 256-A-B]
3. 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. The High Court has opined that only charges 4 & 5 could really have been gone into by the Industrial Tribunal, which required further evidence in its opinion, of a hand writing expert. So far as the other charges are concerned, a conclusion was reached that no further evidence was led. This is neither the correct approach nor borne out of the record. Evidence was led. Even earlier, the material in respect of other charges emanates from the record of the bank which shows the conduct of the respondent which are apparent from the manner of framing of the charges themselves and the material led in support thereof. Thus, even the aspect of the other charges could not have been brushed aside in the manner it purports to. The respondent breached the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as of the bank. 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. [Paras 17, 18 and 19][256-B-C; 256-E-H]
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI (2020) 9 SCC 636 – relied on. Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank (2003) 3 SCC 583 : [2003]
2 SCR 100; GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/s. Alstom Projects Ltd.) v. A. Aziz 2020 SCC Online SC 782 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.