SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 207

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3423 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 33070/2013)
Decided On : 01-03-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Production of forged certificate may lead to dismissal from service.

Headnote:Labour and Industrial Law – Reinstatement – Back wages – Dismissal from service on ground of producing forged certificate – Labour Court had clearly analysed entire evidence and had come to conclusion that employee was fully aware of forgery – Employee had knowledge that document she produced was a forged one – There was no requirement on part of Management to establish whether she had known, at the time of submission of document, that it was a forged one – High Court will not re-appreciate evidence but will only see whether there is evidence in support of impugned conclusion – Court has to take evidence as it stands and its only limited jurisdiction is to examine, whether on evidence, conclusion could have been arrived at – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – There shall be no recovery of wages and benefits already paid to her. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14)

       Facts of Case:

       Appellant is aggrieved by impugned judgment of High Court whereby first respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with 50 per cent back wages, reversing order passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Only ground on which High Court interfered with award was that Management had not established, by leading evidence, that the employee was aware of fact that certificate produced before Management was forged.

       Findings of Court:

       Though learned counsel for the employee made a persuasive attempt for modification of punishment on ground of disproportionality, in view of conduct of employee, we are not inclined to take a different view from that taken by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no recovery of wages and benefits already paid to her.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") was directed to be reinstated in service with 50 per cent back wages, reversing the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The employee, while working with the Management, submitted a certificate purportedly issued by the Indian Institute of Bankers claiming that she had passed the CAIIB Part-II Examination, and on that basis, started drawing additional monetary benefits. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the finding in a domestic enquiry that the certificate was a forged one, dismissed her from service on 01.08.2003. The punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.06.2006. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court declined to grant any relief. However, the High Court ordered reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages, and thus aggrieved, the Management has filed the appeal.

3. The only ground on which the High Court interfered with the award was that the Management had not established, by leading evidence, that the employee was aware of the fact that the certificate produced before the Management was forged. To quote from impugned judgment:

"6. The question, therefore, before the Enquiry Officer was whether the petitioner knew at the time of submission of the forged document that it was forged one. The Presenting Officer in the domestic enquiry did not lead any evidence to prove the knowledge and it appears that everyone went on presuming that the petitioner knew about the forgery since prior to its production before the employer. Due to the fact that she produced it on the employer's record and that she received monetary benefits because of such production, every one believed that she ought to know that it was a forgery. This conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is grossly incorrect because it is based on guess work. He could have said that there is strong doubt in his mind that the petitioner knew before hand that the certificate was a forgery. But, he ought to have asked the Presenting Officer to lead further evidence to prove that the petitioner knew that the document she produced was forgery. Neither the Presenting Officer realised this gross lacuna in their case. On the basis of this guess and doubt, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. This, in my view was grossly incorrect decision."

4. We find it difficult to appreciate the strange stand taken by the High Court. The Labour Court had clearly analysed the entire evidence and had come to the conclusion that the employee was fully aware of the forgery. The Tribunal took note of the fact that she had produced a copy of the postal receipt of dispatching the certificate from the Institute of Bankers in her evidence but failed to explain the source of the postal receipt. It also took note of the fact that the alleged certificate of having passed the examination is dated 04.09.2000. If that be so, there was no occasion for asking for any re-verification of the marks by filing an application dated 08.09.2000. Still further, the Court extensively referred to the reply furnished by the Institute of Bankers and came to the conclusion that the certificate was a forged one. To quote from paragraph-10 of the award dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court:

"10. ....The workman has claimed that she received the pass certificates from the Indian Institute of Bankers by registered speed post in her home address and filed the same before the authority. In support of her claim, she filed an envelope to show that the certificate in question was sent to her in the said envelop by the Indian Institute of Bankers. However, from by merely filing of the envelope, it cannot be held that the certificate in question was sent by the Institute in question to the workman in the said envelo







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top