LALIT POPLI versus CANARA BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 18-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LALIT POPLI 
v. 
CANARA BANK AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 18, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service· Law: 
Disciplinary proceedings-Charge of forgery against bank employee-
C Dismissal from service on the basis of evidence of Handwriting Expert-
Adverse remarks against the expert in the past-Plea of lack of criminal intent 
by delinquent-However, carelessness in transaction admitted-Dismissal 
upheld by disciplinary and appellate authorities-Single Judge of High Court 
did not rely on the expert opinion and held the dismissal order illegal-
D Division Bench in view of limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 
of the Constitution, did not interfere with order of disciplinary authority and 
upheld the dismissal-On appeal: Held the authorities were justified in drawing 
adverse remarks-Report of Handwriting expert has clearly proved the 
delinquent as author of forgery-A bank employee deals with public money-
The nature of the work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act 
E carefully-Any carelessness invites action. 
F 
G 
Criminal proceeding and Disciplinary proceeding-Distinction between. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Judicial RevieW-Scope and ambit of in disciplinary 
proceedings-Held, in exercise of the power under, Court does not act as 
appellate authority-Its. jurisdiction is circumscribed bJi limits of judicial review 
to correct errors of law or procedural errors heading to manifest injustice or 
violation of principles of natural justice-It is not akin to adjudication on 
merits. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Sections 45, 47 and 73-Expert opinion-Handwriting Expert-Reliability 
on in absence of corroboration-Held, evidence of Handwriting Expert need 
not invariably be corroborated-It is for the Court to decide whether to accept 
H such uncorroborated evidence. 
100 
.. 
.,. 
\ 
~ 
LALIT POPLI v. CANARA BANK 
101 
Doctrines: 
A 
Doctrine of "proof beyond doubt"-Applicability of 
Appellant-a bank employee was charged for forgery and unauthorized 
withdrawal of. money from a customer's account. He was charge sheeted 
along with imputations of miscondu~t. Employee accepted that there was B 
some lapse on his part, but he pleaded lack of criminal intent. Inquiry officer 
on the basis of witnesses including the evidence of Handwriting Expert held 
him guilty of misconduct and thereafter order of his dismissal from servic;) 
was passed. Disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of inquiry 
officer. Appeal before the appellate authority was also rejected. In writ 
petition Single Judge of High Court held that evidence of Handwriting Expert C 
is no evidence at all and thus the order of disciplinary authority was held to 
be illegal. In appeal Division Bench held that High Court in exercise of the 
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as an 
appellate authority and, therefore, Single Judge was not justified in interfering 
with the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority. 
D 
In appeal to this Court appellant-employee contended that there was 
no material to con11ect the appellant to the alleged forgery which was the 
foundation for the disciplinary action; that the report of the Handwriting 
Expert, about whose credibility serious remarks-were made in the past had 
no evidentiary value and thus he was not competent w.itness; that Forensic E 
Science Laboratory did not find any material against employee; and that 
report of the Handwriting Expert was full of"inconsistencies. 
Respondents contended that Division Bench rightly considered the scope 
and ambit of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings; that 
it cannot be said that Han.dwriting Expert's report cannot be accepted without p 
further corroboration as the report was clear and cogent and had clearly 
spelt out how employee was the author of forgery. 
Dis111issing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The authorities were justified in drawing adverse remarks. 
The report of the handwriting expert is clear and cogent and has clearly spelt G 
·out the areas of similarities in the disputed document and the admitted 
writings to highlight as to how employee was the author of forgery. The 
employee himself had accepted that he committed careless mistakes, but took 
the plea that there was no criminal intent. The authorities have analysed 
the job requirements of the post which the employee held and discussed H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 

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