RAE BARELI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK versus BHOLA NATH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 28-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAE BARELI KSHETRIY A GRAMIN BANK 
v. 
BHOLA NATH SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Dismissal---<:ashier in Bank-Charged of misconduct for forgery of 
C signatures and for fradulent withdrawal of a,mounts-lnquiry Officer found 
the charges established-Disciplinary authority ordered dismissal-Order 
upheld in appeal-High Court in writ jurisdiction on re-appreciation of 
evidence quashed the order--Held, High Court e"ed in examining the 
evidence as a first appeal/ate court-Judicial review is not akin to adjudication 
D of case on merits as an appellate authority-High Court in proceedings under 
Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority but 
exercises the power within the limits of judicial review to co"ect e"ors of law 
or procedural e"ors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of 
natural justice-In the present case no such e"ors were pointed out nor any 
E finding in that behalf was recorded by High Court-Order of High Court set 
aside; judicial Review : Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1826 of 
1997. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.96 of the Allahabad High 
G 
Court in W.P. No. 10200 of 1990. 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General and B. Parthasarathy for 
the appellant. 
Yogcshwar Prasad, Mrs. Rachna Gupta and P.K. Bajaj for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
588 
RAE BARELI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK v. BHOLA NA TH SINGH 589 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single A 
Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on April 19, 1996 in Writ 
Petition No. 10200/90. 
The admitted position is that the respondent, while working as 
Cashier-cum-Clerk in the appellant-Bank, was charged with the allegation B 
that he had fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 28,500 on different dates 
from the saving accounts of different account-holders by forging the bank 
records and signatures of the saving bank account-holders. A charge sheet 
was served upon him to which the respondent gave his reply. An enquiry 
was conducted in which he did not participate. Proceedings were con-
ducted ex-parte. Then, the enquiry officer, after detailed examination of the C 
evidence adduced, recorded findings that the respondent was guilty of 
misconduct for forgery of the signatures and for fraudulent withdrawal of 
the amounts. Accordingly, he submitted his report. The disciplinary 
authority on April 17, 1989 had given the respondent a show-cause notice 
as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on him. The D 
respondent submitted his reply thereto on April 11, 1990. On consideration 
thereof, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of the dismissal 
from service. In appeal, the Board had considered the entire record and 
confirmed the order dismissing the respondent from service. The respon-
dent, thereafter, filed the writ petition in the High Court. The learned 
Judge has gone into the merits of the matter and found that the charges E 
have not been proved. Utlimately, he quashed the punishment of dismissal 
from service. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, has con-
tended that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge is not correct in F 
law. Even the writ petition was not maintainable because the alternative 
remedy of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act is available. 
Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is vitiated by error of law. 
Shri Y ogeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel for respondent, contends 
that all the steps taken by the enquiry officer in conducting enquiry were 
not in accordance with law. The Branch Manager has admitted in a letter G 
that he is responsible for the withdrawal of the amounts; the respondent 
was made a scapegoat;. the hand-writing expert was not exmined in the 
enquiry and, therefore, there is no admissible evidence to show that the 
respondent had forged the signatures of the account-holders and 
withdrawn the amount. His application to summon the witness and to H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A cross-examine them was denied violating the principles of natural justice. 
B 
' 
The High Court, therefore, was right in holding that the charges have not 
been proved against the respondent beyo

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