The main legal point established is the requirement for disciplinary and appellate authorities to consider the defense of the petitioner and adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the Bank.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure 8), passed by the Appellate authority (respondent no.2), whereby punishment of dismissal without notice has been inflicted on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority vide office order dated 28.12.2013 (Annexure 7) in terms of memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings. He submits that the petitioner being a workman within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), should have first approached the appropriate Authority under the said Act. Relevant objection is made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent bank.

4. The brief undisputed facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that pursuant to the examination conducted on 22.11.2009 for appointment of an assistant in the respondent bank the petitioner had appeared in the selection process. Having been found successful, he joined the service of the respondent bank. Upon his joining on 15.12.2010, he was posted in Nokha branch of Rohtas district. Some anonymous complaint had been received against the petitioner that he had not appeared at the examination and somebody else had impersonated him in the process of selection. Relying upon such complaint, the bank conducted internal investigation. The report of the internal investigation is at Annexure A to the counter affidavit and the same is dated 5.3.2011.

5. In order to ascertain whether the petitioner had actually appeared in the examination or not, the internal investigation officer has examined petitioner’s signature and thumb impression and compared /verified the same with reference to the signature and thumb impression made at the examination center. Opinion of the investigation officer casts a doubt on the photograph of the petitioner. Regarding signature he has stated that signature on the call letter (Annexure II) also almost tallies, if seen with naked eyes, with the signatures taken on his statement/documents taken subsequently (Annexure III, IV and V). Regarding thumb impression, opinion of the Investigating officer was that the comments regarding similarity or otherwise of the thumb impression should be made by a technical expert only. On the basis of such findings, the Investigating officer submitted his conclusion that the report of the Forensic expert/GEQD on the issue is required to arrive at a definite conclusion.

6. The same has been obtained from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 30, Gorachand Road, Kolkata, which under covering letter dated 26.9.2012 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit) has submitted the report. Contrary to the recommendation of the Investigating officer, thumb impression had not been sent for technical/expert opinion and only petitioner’s signature had been sent. Opinion on the same has been sent under the said covering letter. The opinion of the expert suggests that there is a variation in the signature of the petitioner obtained for the propose of comparison with that of other documents.

7. Thereafter, one charge memo dated 21.6.2013 (Annexure 4) was served upon the petitioner. The Enquiry officer thereafter proceeded with the enquiry and relying solely on the basis of the opinion of the hand writing expert, submitted by the report dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure 5), a conclusion has been arrived at as follows:-

“FINDING OF ENQUIRY OFFICER

I, have perused prosecution/Defence documents, their written briefs and proceeding recorded in EPR to find out the fact of the allegations:

Since the person who actually wrote the written examination & qualified the written examination for appointment did not execute & signed the documents pertaining to