INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS. versus OM PRAKASH LAL SRIVASTAVA

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 19-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 246
246
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.
v.
OM PRAKASH LAL SRIVASTAVA
(Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2022)
JANUARY 19, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH,JJ.]
Service Law: Bank service – Disciplinary proceedings –
Dismissal from service – Respondent employed in appellant-bank/
management as a clerk-cum-cashier – A complaint was made by his
sister-in-law that respondent had opened and operated saving bank
account in joint name with her by forging her signatures and
encashed demand draft which she had received on death of her
husband – Inquiry officer opined that bare comparison of the
signatures on the account opening form and withdrawal form
purportedly signed by sister-in-law of respondent showed that they
were different, by looking from the perspective of a “banker’s eye”
and that all charges against respondent stood proved – Disciplinary
Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service – Industrial
Tribunal held that the management failed to produce original
documents and most photocopies of the relevant pages were not
readable and thus there was violation of rules of natural justice –
However, Tribunal granted an opportunity to the management to
prove the charges against the respondent – Management led
evidence by producing five witnesses while respondent examined
himself – Tribunal answered the reference against the respondent
opining that the management was successful in establishing all the
charges against him and the punishment of dismissal also was
commensurate to the charges levelled and proved against him –
Appellant filed writ petition before High Court – High Court allowed
writ petition while remitting matter back to Industrial Tribunal in
respect of charges 4 and 5 holding that when the earlier departmental
proceedings were found to be violative of the principles of natural
justice then no findings vis-a-vis charges 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 should
have been arrived at, based on the plea that the management led
evidence only in respect of charges 4 and 5 – In respect of charges
4 and 5, it was opined that on the request of the respondent, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
signatures of his sister-in-law should have been got compared with
her admitted signatures by an expert and then only a correct
conclusion could have been arrived at and the Tribunal should
have refrained from acting like an expert – On management’s appeal,
held: High Court applied the test of criminal proceedings to
departmental proceedings while traversing the path of requirement
of a hand writing expert to be called for the said purpose – High
Court opined that only charges 4 and 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
were concerned, a conclusion was reached that no further evidence
was led – This was neither the correct approach nor borne out of
the record – In fact, evidence was led – Even earlier, the material in
respect of other charges emanated from the record of the
management which showed the conduct of the respondent – Thus,
even the aspect of the other charges could not have been brushed
aside in the manner it purported to – On the matter being remitted
back, two witnesses deposed as to these aspects – Respondent was
a clerk-cum-cashier – It was a post of confidence – He breached
that confidence – In fact, the respondent breached the trust of a
widowed sister-in-law as well as of the bank, and, therefore, no
case was made out for interference either on law or on moral grounds
– The punishment imposed on the respondent could also not be said
to be disproportionate – The conduct established of the respondent
did not entitle him to continue in service.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. If there is no jurisdictional error or violation of
natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record,
there is no occasion for the High Court to get into the merits of
the controversy as an appellate court. That too, on the aspect of
an opinion formed in respect of two sets of signatures where the
inquiry was held by an officer of the bank who came to an opinion
on a bare comparison of the signatures that there is a difference
in the same. It has been looked at from the perspective of a
“banker’s eye”. This is, of course, apart from the testimony of
the sister-in-law of the respondent. [Para 15][255-C-D]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. OM PRAKASH LAL

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.