PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. GURMIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 21-6-2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 2515/97.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the respondent was working as a teller in the appellant-bank at its Napier Town Branch at Jabalpur. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent by Zonal Manager of the bank, who was the Disciplinary Authority, on the charges that one Nand Singh had opened SB Account No. 41 in the Napier Town Branch of the Bank on 13-7-1981 and Nand Singh died on 27-12-1981, but after his death on 17-2-86, 14-4-86, 15-4-86 and 17-4-86 some amounts were withdrawn by instruments containing signatures of the deceased Nand Singh alleged to have been forged by the respondent. The Inquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry against the respondent and examined some witnesses on behalf of the management of the appellant-Bank. On the basis of evidence as adduced both oral and documentary, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report that the charges against the respondent stood proved. The respondent was then given an opportunity to show cause why the Inquiry Officer's report should not be accepted and the respondent submitted his reply on 19-2-1996 and 26-2-1996 to the Disciplinary Authority. In his reply, the respondent contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were arbitrary, perverse and one sided and were given in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the Inquiry Officer's Report as well as the reply of the respondent agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and held that the charges against the respondent were proved and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal against the order of dismissal but the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Then, the respondent filed W. P. No. 2515/97 and by the impugned order dated 21-6-2005, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of dismissal dated 29-2-1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order passed by the appellate Authority and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) MR. Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the first ground on which the learned Single Judge had quashed the order of punishment is that a copy of the report of handwriting expert which was taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority for holding the respondent guilty of the charges was not supplied to the respondent. He submitted that the report of handwriting expert was not relied on by the Inquiry Officer for recording of his finding in the Inquiry Officer report that the respondent was guilty of charges. He submitted that the respondent took a stand before the disciplinary Authority that the signatures on the instruments including the cheques through which the amounts were withdrawn from the account of deceased Nand Singh were not forged by the respondent. The Disciplinary authority referred the instruments to the handwriting expert for his opinion and the handwriting expert gave his opinion that the signatures have been put on the instruments by the respondent. He submitted that if the report of the handwriting expert had not been furnished to the respondent,the Court could at best direct the authority to record his findings afresh without taking into account the report of handwriting expert but the Court could not exonerate the respondent from all charges and direct this reinstatement in service. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal corporation, Delhi Vs. Ramprakash, and in U. P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Padamchand Jain, 1995 (4) SLR 742.