LALIT POPLI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had joined the service of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank as clerk. In October, 1985, the Lakshmi Commercial Bank was taken over by the Canara Bank. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the 11th of May, 1992 and an inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority. There was an appeal to the appellate authority and that was dismissed on the 3rd of April, 1996.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority. The second respondent, Canara Bank, opposed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and the inquiry officer held an inquiry examining the witnesses and submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority. On the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment after considering the materials on record. It is further submitted by the second respondent that the appellate authority had also given cogent reasons for confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner cannot challenge the findings by the domestic tribunal and this is not a case of no evidence, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the inquiry officer had rested his decision on the basis of the opinion of a handwriting expert, and that too, he has suspicion and the charge against the petitioner had not been proved and leaving out of account the evidence of handwriting expert, there is no evidence against the petitioner and the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, took me through the charge, the explanation and also the report of the inquiry officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, submitted that the person examined as handwriting by the second respondent Bank is not a qualified handwriting expert and courts had passed strictures against him and in the examination before the inquiry officer, he had posed himself possessing some degrees, while he does not possess any degree at all and he is just a matriculate. Therefore, according to Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, the person examined by the second respondent Bank to prove charge against the petitioner was not a competent handwriting expert and, therefore, his opinion cannot at all be accepted and inasmuch as the second respondent had relied upon the opinion of a person who is not an expert, the report of the inquiry officer is illegal and consequently, the decision of the disciplinary authority stand vitiated and by the same process of reasoning, the order of the appellate authority must go. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, had also placed on record the opinion given by the Senior Scientific Officer of the Central Forensic Laboratory, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. A copy of the same was submitted to the court by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr.C.S.Vaidyanathan.