The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh while hearing an appeal opined 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. 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.
Facts
The respondent was employed with the appellant-Bank as a clerkcum-cashier. The appellant-Bank received a complaint from the sister-in-law of the respondent (Mrs. Meera Srivastava) that the respondent had opened and operated a savings account in the joint name of the respondent and his sister-inlaw by forging her signatures and encashed a demand draft of Rs. 20,000/- which was issued to her by way of interim relief by Kalyan Nigam Limited in which her husband was employed as a Junior Engineer, who had unfortunately passed away in a road accident. The respondent was placed under suspension by the Bank for committing acts of grave misconduct and he was issued a chargesheet. The respondent denied the allegations in response to the chargesheet. An inquiry officer was appointed to adjudicate upon the charges. It is the appellant’s case that all principles of natural justice were followed and the respondent was supplied with all documents/material relied upon by the appellant-Bank.
Procedural History
The inquiry officer concluded the inquiry and submitted the report opining that all charges stood proved against the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was served with a show cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent submitted a reply but the Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply proceeded to uphold the finding and impose the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority rejected the same. The respondent sought to raise an industrial dispute and the Central Government referred the dispute to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the issue whether the action of the Management imposing the penalty of dismissal was justified and legal. The Tribunal 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 answered the reference against the respondent opining that the appellant Bank/Management had been successful in establishing all the charges against the respondent. The appellant sought to assail this order by filing writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held 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 & 7 should have been arrived at, based on the plea that the Bank led evidence only in respect of charges 4 & 5. In respect of charges 4 & 5 it was opined that on the request of the respondent the signatures of Mrs. Meera Srivastava should have been got compared with her admitted signatures by an expert and the Tribunal should have refrained from acting like an expert.
Contentions Made
Appellant: 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 based on 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 Rs.20,000/- received through a demand draft as compensation on the demise of her husband. There was no material cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt her testimony. Insofar as the remaining charges are concerned, the documents led to an irresistible conclusion that even those charges relating to insubordination, disobeying the orders of the higher authorities, forging the suspension letters were proved and even by themselves were sufficient to award the punishment of dismissal from service.
Respondent: In terms of the impugned judgment charges other than charges 4 & 5 were in any case not proved as no evidence had been led in that behalf and reliance could not be placed only on documents. Charges 4 & 5 were also not proved and sought to refer to the judgment of this Court in Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“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. 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.”
While noting the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it observed that such evidence was enough to implicate the respondent. It then went on to observe that:
“The High Court appears to have applied the test of criminal proceedings to departmental proceedings while traversing the path of requirement of a handwriting expert to be called for the said purpose. This would go contrary to the settled legal position enunciated by this Court.”
It further observed that:
“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.”
Judgment
The Bench was of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside and the challenge to the award of the Industrial Tribunal was repelled. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Name: Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. vs Om Prakash Lal Srivastava
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.267 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice M.M. Sundresh
Decided on:19th January 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :