TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specific instructions given by them, which is an act of wilful insubordination and is a gross misconduct under para 19.5(e) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66. Charge No.3: By refusing to include the outward clearing cheques for ₹ 2,21,161.47 for the day s clearing on 28.9.94, you caused inconvenience and hardship to the Bank s customers concerned and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, which is a gross misconduct under para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66. Charge No.4: You fraudulently and dishonestly opened savings bank account No.7882 in the joint names of yourself and your sister-in-law Mrs. Meera Srivastava by forging the signature of the latter which is an act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and a gross misconduct under para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66. Charge No.5: You fraudulently and dishonestly withdrew from the joint account No.7882 a sum of ₹ 20,000/- (being the proceedings of the demand draft issued in favour of Mrs. Meera Srivastava and credited into the account) in two instalments of ₹ 7,000/- and ₹ 13,000/- on 20.5.94 and 13.6.94 resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissal was justified and legal. 7. The proceedings were contested before the Tribunal and the Tribunal framed a preliminary issue on the question of fairness of the domestic inquiry. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.11.2011 decided the preliminary issue against the appellant as the appellant- Management/Bank had failed to produce original documents and most photocopies of the relevant pages were not readable. It was, thus, concluded that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the appellant-Bank to prove the charges against respondent by adducing evidence. The Bank led its evidence by producing five witnesses while the respondent examined himself. The Tribunal vide award dated 21.2.2013 answered the reference against the respondent opining that the appellant- Bank/Management had been successful in establishing all the charges against the respondent. On the issue of quantum of punishment also it was held that the same was commensurate to the charges levelled and proved against the respondent. 8. The appellant sought to assail this order of the Tribunal by filing writ petition, being WP(C) No. 53458/2013, bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industrial Tribunal. Submissions of the Appellant: 10. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court fell into an error in applying the standards of proof of criminal proceedings to disciplinary proceedings as the misconduct by an employee in disciplinary proceedings is to be evaluated on the basis of probabilities and preponderance of evidence. There was sufficient evidence to show that the respondent committed fraud and forgery by manipulating the signatures of the complainant Mrs. Meera Srivastava, opening an account, operating the account and appropriating the sum of ₹ 20,000/- received through a demand draft as compensation on the demise of her husband. The respondent took advantage of the complainant being his sister-in-law. The complainant has given clear and unequivocal testimony on oath before the Tribunal and nothing had come out to the contrary in her cross-examination. In fact, regarding this aspect, it was submitted that there was no material cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt her testimony. 11. Insofar as the remaining charges are concerned, the documents led to an irresistible conclusion that eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Tribunal to now seek opinion of a hand writing expert. 15. We would like to emphasise at the threshold that 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. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/s. Alstom Projects Ltd.) v. A. Aziz 2020 SCC Online SC 782. 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 sisterin- law of the respondent. 16. We have in the course of noting the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the context of the factual matrix recorded in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 19. In our view 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
