Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Indian Overseas Bank and Others – Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash Lal Srivastava – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Labour and Industrial Law – Dismissal – From Banking service for operating a forged Bank Account – High Court has fallen into error in coming to conclusion in impugned judgment and directing, once again, matter to be remitted to Industrial Tribunal to now seek opinion of a hand writing expert – There are certain inherent legal limitations to scrutiny of an award of a Tribunal by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India – If there is no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or error of law apparent on face of record, there is no occasion for High Court to get into merits of controversy as an appellate court – That too, on aspect of an opinion formed in respect of two sets of signatures where inquiry was held by an officer of the bank who came to an opinion on a bare comparison of signatures that there is a difference in the same – It has been looked at from perspective of a banker’s eye – Standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than standard of proof in criminal proceedings where case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Respondent was a clerk-cum-cashier – It is a post of confidence – Respondent breached that confidence – Respondent breached trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as of bank, making it hardly a case for interference either on law or on moral grounds – Punishment imposed on respondent could also hardly be said to be disproportionate – Conduct established of respondent did not entitle him to continue in service – Impugned judgment of High Court is liable to be set aside and challenge to award of Industrial Tribunal repelled. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-Bank, a nationalised one, took the ultimate step against the respondent as an employee in pursuance of departmental proceedings having found him guilty on various counts inter alia including breach of duty as a custodian of public money and dishonesty, fraud or manipulation of documents. The Industrial Tribunal ultimately upheld the decision of the appellant-Bank but in terms of the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court, five of the charges were found not proved while qua two of the charges the matter was remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal with a limited mandate. Said decision was, however, stayed by this Court on 5.3.2019.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The appellant-Bank, a nationalised one, took the ultimate step against the respondent as an employee in pursuance of departmental proceedings having found him guilty on various counts inter-alia including breach of duty as a custodian of public money and dishonesty, fraud or manipulation of documents. The Industrial Tribunal ultimately upheld the decision of the appellant-Bank but in terms of the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court, five of the charges were found not proved while qua two of the charges the matter was remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal with a limited mandate.
2. The said decision was, however, stayed by this Court on 5.3.2019.
The facts:
3. The respondent was employed with the appellant-Bank as a clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 14.9.1981. The appellant-Bank received a complaint dated 8.10.1994 from the sister-in-law of the respondent, Smt. Meera Srivastava, that the respondent had opened and operated a Savings Account No. 7882 in the joint name of the respondent and his sister-in-law 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 on 15.4.1994. The respondent was placed under suspension on 5.11.1994 by the Bank for committing acts of grave misconduct at the Gorakhpur Branch and he was issued a charge-sheet dated 22.3.1995. The charges are as under:
Charge No. 2: You refused to include the outward clearing cheques for Rs. 2,21,161.47 for the day’s clearing on 28.9.1994 when Mr. A.K. Chakraborthy and Mr. S.N. Pandey officer handed over the said cheques at the clearing house before 10.30 a.m. despite 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 19.10.1966.
Charge No. 3: By refusing to include the outward clearing cheques for Rs. 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 19.10.1966.
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 19.10.1966.
Charge No. 5: You fraudulently and dishonestly withdrew from the Joint Account No. 7882 a sum of Rs. 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 Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- on 20.5.1994 and 13.6.1994 respectively by forging the signature of Mrs. Meera Srivastava in the withdrawal slip 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 19.10.1966.
Charge No. 6: By Gheraoing the Branch Manager Mr. R.N. Saxena along with a few outsiders and staff members, by threatening and abusing the Branch Manager I un-parliamentary language and by forcibly taking the copy of the suspension order after searching the Branch Manager’s brief case, table drawer and his pocket on 9.11.1994, you behaved in a riotous, disorderly and indecent manner which is a gross misconduct under Para 19.5(c) of the Bipar
(1) A Bank employee is expected to maintain high degree of personal integrity in discharge of his duty.(2) There are certain inherent legal limitations to scrutiny of an award of a Tribunal by High C....
It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established....
Point of Law : It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must....
A bank employee's misconduct, including forgery of documents, justifies severe penalties such as compulsory retirement to maintain integrity in financial institutions.
The employer failed to prove misconduct in disciplinary proceedings, thus affirming the Labour Court’s ruling on insufficient evidence and breach of natural justice.
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority must be based on sufficient evidence and consideration of relevant factors, and the proce....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority must consider various factors such as the gravity of misconduct, previous record, and any....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
