THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF LNDIA versus SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 01-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 33 
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF lNDIA 
A 
v. 
SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 3423 of2017) 
MARCHOJ,2017 
B 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Dismissal from service - On finding in domestic enquiry that 
the certificate of having passed CAIIB Part-II Examination, on the 
basis of which the employee was drawing additional salary, was 
forged - Appellate authority as well as the Industrial Tr.ibunal 
affirmed the.finding - High Court in writ petition ordered 
reinstatement with 50% backwages holding that the management 
had not established, that the employee was mvare of the fact that 
the certificate was forged - On appeal; held: Evidence led by 
employee, clearly shows that the certificate was forged - Therefore, 
the management was not required. to establish whether thf! employee 
had the knowledge that the certificate was forged - High Court 
had a limited jurisdiction to examine whether the conclusion could 
have been arrived at, on available evidence - It did not have power 
to re-appreciate the evidence. 
Constitution of India: 
Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Held: High Court 
does not have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is a well-settled principle that the High Court 
will not re~appreciate the evidence but will only see whether there 
is evidence in support of the impugned conclusion. The court 
has to take the evidence as it stands and its only limited 
jurisdiction is to examine, whether on the evidence, the 
conclusion could have been arrived at. [Para 6] [37-D-E] 
Union of India v. H.C. Goel [1964] 4 SCR 718; Bank 
of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 
5 SCC 762: [1999) 3 SCR 824 - relied on. 
33 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
34 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
2. The Labour Court had clearly analysed the entire 
evidence and had come to the conclusion that the employee was 
fully aware of the forgery. The evidence led by the employee, as 
rightly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal, would clearly show 
that she had the knowledge that the document she produced was 
a forged one. There was no requirement on the part of the 
Management to establish whether she had known, at the time of 
submission of the document, that it was a forged one. Therefore, 
there is no basis at all for the stand taken by the High Court that 
the Management did not establish that the employee had 
knowledge about the certificate being a forged one. [Para 4, 5, 9] 
[35-F-G; 37-C; 38-D) 
[1964] 4 SCR 718 
[1999) 3 SCR 824 
Case Law Reference 
~elied on 
relied on 
Para6 
Para7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3423 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2013 of the High Court 
of Bombay at Nagpur in WPC No. l:l70 of 2012. 
H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan, Ms. Priyanka 
E 
Das, Ms. Megha Kamwal, Advs. for the Appellant. 
F 
G 
H 
L. D. Joshi, Dr. M. S. Verma, S. Manda!, (For Rabin.Majumder), 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") 
is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the 
first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") was directed 
to be reinstated in service with 50 per cent back wages, reversing the 
order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The employee, 
while working with the Management, submitted a certificate purportedly 
issued by the Indian Institute of Bankers claiming that she had passed 
the CAIIB Part.-II Examination, and on that basis, started drawing 
additional monetary benefits. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the 
finding in a domestic enquiry that the certificate was a forged one, 
dismissed her from service on 01.08.2003. The punishment was upheld 
'THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SMITA 
SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER [KURIAN, J.] 
by the Appellate Authority vide order dated I 0.06.2006. The Industrial 
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court declined to grant any relief. However, the 
High Court ordered reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages, and 
thus aggrieved, the Management has filed the appeal. 
3. The only ground on which the High Court interfered with the 
award was thatthe Management had not established, by leading evidence, 
that the employee was aware of the fact that the certificate produced 
before the Management-Bank

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