Case Note & Summary
The appellant, S. Thangavelu, was a Clerk/Shroff at Indian Overseas Bank. On 24.07.2011, he was issued a charge memo for stealthily removing a cheque book, fraudulently making a fictitious entry in the Cheque Book Register, and forgery. After his explanation was found unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of all charges. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.83 of 2013 before the Labour Court, which confirmed the dismissal. He then filed a writ petition in WP.No.17798 of 2015, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appellant argued that the charges were fictitious, that the existing practice in the rural branch of helping illiterate customers was ignored, and that the enquiry report was based on documents without examining a handwriting expert, relying on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank. The respondent-Bank contended that the findings were based on oral and documentary evidence, not merely documents. The Division Bench held that in a domestic enquiry, strict rules of evidence do not apply; the enquiry officer can rely on oral testimony and documents marked through witnesses. The judgment in Roop Singh Negi was distinguished as it pertained to a case where no oral evidence was adduced. Here, the Bank had examined witnesses who proved the documents, and the appellant had cross-examined them. The court found no perversity in the findings and held that the punishment of dismissal for forgery and fraud, involving moral turpitude, was proportionate. The writ appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge and the award of the Labour Court.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Standard of Proof in Domestic Enquiry - Evidence - The court considered whether the findings of guilt in a domestic enquiry can be sustained without examination of a handwriting expert when oral and documentary evidence sufficiently prove the charges. Held that in a domestic enquiry, the strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply; the enquiry officer can rely on oral testimony and documents marked through witnesses, and the absence of a handwriting expert does not vitiate the proceedings if there is other credible evidence. (Paras 7-8) B) Service Law - Punishment - Proportionality - Forgery and Fraud - The court examined whether the punishment of dismissal for forgery and fraudulent removal of a cheque book is disproportionate. Held that the charges of forgery and fraud involve moral turpitude and breach of trust, and the punishment of dismissal is proportionate and not shockingly disproportionate, warranting no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the appellant for forgery and fraudulent activities is proportionate and based on legally admissible evidence in the domestic enquiry.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.17798 of 2015 dated 23.06.2015 and the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.83 of 2013. No costs.
Law Points
- Domestic enquiry
- standard of proof
- evidence
- forgery
- fraud
- dismissal
- industrial dispute
- writ appeal
