Supreme Court Upholds Bank Employee Dismissal for Fraud and Forgery

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision, dismissing the respondent from the Bank due to proven charges of fraud and forgery. The Court emphasized that misconduct in disciplinary proceedings should be evaluated based on probabilities and preponderance of evidence. The High Court's requirement for a handwriting expert was deemed unnecessary, as existing evidence was deemed sufficient. The Court found the punishment of dismissal proportional to the respondent's actions, breaching trust and justifying termination. The appeal was allowed, and each party was to bear its own costs.

---

---

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.

---