Petitioner while serving as Head Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Branch office Usawan, Budaun, a complaint was received by the bank authorities from one Pawan Misra and Mrs. Meera Jaiswal that the amount deposited with the bank has not been credited in their account. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 83,940/-. The charges were replied by the petitioner stating therein that no such amount was deposited by the said complainants nor any receipt was issued by him in this behalf. The Enquiry Officer did not find explanation of the petitioner satisfactory and recommended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3.4.2006 which too was replied by the petitioner. Consequently, an order of dismissal was passed by the appointing authority against the petitioner. An appeal was preferred against the dismissal order which was also dismissed on 13.9.2006. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
The case set out by the petitioner is that no amount was deposited by the complainant nor any receipt was issued in this behalf. He also laid stress on the fact that even the amount which is said to have been deposited by Pawan Misra his signatures have not been proved during the course of enquiry. Another complaint was filed by the husband of Smt. Meera Jaiswal. She denied depositing of the amount in the bank on 24.11.2004 as is stated in the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is stated that the signatures of the petitioner were not proved in accordance with law as per provisions of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended that one slip dated 13.2.2005 is said to have been issued on Sunday, which is a holiday and another dated 15.2.2005 is receipt issued on FDR slip. The mode and manner in which the signatures of the petitioner have been proved are not in accordance with law and as such, there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to hold him guilty. The order of dismissal per se was based on the evidence which is perverse.
On the other hand, the stand of the respondent is that the signatures of the petitioner on deposit receipt have been identified by the manager who was acquainted with the said signatures. It is further contended that the amount deposited by the customer/complainant has not been entered into the cash book nor the said amount has been credited in the account of the customer. Once the signatures of the petitioners were identified by the persons who were acquainted with the said signatures, nothing more was required to be proved by the respondent bank. The order of dismissal was passed in accordance with law.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The rules of natural justice are required to be observed in conducting the domestic enquiry and employee must be allowed reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Where the enquiry is found fair and proper and finding of guilt in respect of charge is found to be valid, no interference can be sought except if there is any breach committed of the rules in holding such an enquiry. It is well settled proposition of law that courts are not required to enter into an arena of substituting their views from what has been recorded by the tribunal. The courts have no power to correct a decision but only a decision making process. It is true that in the departmental proceedings standard of proving charge is not required to be same as in the case of criminal trial. If there is strong probability that misconduct has been committed such finding can not be disturbed only on the ground that charge has not been proved as is required in the criminal trial. It is also true that charge is required to be proved in consonance with law. The person can not be found guilty if there is no legal evidence to sustain the charge in respect of misconduct. The evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. In the present case the signatures of the petitioner have been identified by the Manager of the Bank who claims himself to be acquainted with his signatures. The finding recorded in this behalf by the Enquiry Officer is that the petitioner has issued a receipt in favour of the complainant on the deposit slip. The signatures of the petitioner have been identified by the manager and another employee of the bank; and that no entry was made in the cash register nor the amount was credited into the account of the customer.
In order to sustain the charge against the petitioner, it is essential that the signatures have to be proved in accordance with law. The two witnesses Sri S.M. Mansuri and Sri B.C. Agrawal employees of the bank have identified the signatures of the petitioner on the receipt without comparing the words and figures with the words and figures of the petitioner already existed on the record of the bank. It is requirement of law that a person who is acquitted with the signatures of a person can prove it by words and figures written by such a person. Admittedly the signatures of the petitioner were not compared with the record available and signatures have been identified by two employees of bank purely on the basis of their memory. This is the only evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer in this behalf, which is the basis of passing of dismissal order against the petitioner. Section-73 of the Indian Evidence Act states that if any writing of any person is required to be proved, the same has to be compared with one which is required to be proved. The satisfaction has to be recorded by the court on examining such witnesses. So essence of the law is that the signatures will always have to be compared with the signature available on the record. The signature of the petitioner were not compared with the signature available on record with the bank. As such, there is no legal evidence available on record. In such a situation the Court has power to set aside the termination order. The judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The High Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct error of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of nature justice.
Reliance placed in the present case on the statement of aforesaid two witnesses by the Enquiry Officer is an error of law which can be corrected by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no other evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer in this behalf. As a matter of fact neither the complainant nor the person who has deposited money on behalf of the complainant has have been examined in this case by the Enquiry Officer. The reliance has been placed exclusively on the statements of two employees of the bank.
I, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the orders impugned dated 3.4.2006 and 24.4.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the appellate authority and respondents are directed to reinstated the petitioner in service. In case the respondents intended to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner, the observation made here-in-above shall not effect the outcome of said enquiry.
(Sunil Hali, J.) Order Date :- 6.1.2012 SU.