DILIP KR PANDIT Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working with the Bank of Maharashtra as a clerk. He was suspended with effect from 3rd October, 1991. More than seven years thereafter he was-charge sheeted; to be precise the charge-sheet was issued on 16th November, 1998. Even after seven years the Bank was not sure about the charges against the petitioner so that a corrigendum had to be issued on 29th December, 1998. The Enquiry was, thereafter, held and the charges against the petitioner have been held to have been proved. It appears from the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer was much too concerned about the delay during the period between 12th April, 2000 and 1st December, 2000 during which period the petitioner was ill and could not participate in the enquiry. He, however, has not spent even a word as to why was the petitioner suspended in the year 1991 and was not issued the charge-sheet then and there and what necessitated the delay of seven-years for the purpose of issuing a charge-sheet.

(2.) It would be appropriate to notice the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly a clerk. Admittedly, he has posted a cheque for Rs. 7,000/-. Admittedly, he has prepared an interest voucher for Rs. 16,963/-. Admittedly, he has posted two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each. This is what he did. Three charges levelled against him are related to these three things which he did. As regards cheque for Rs. 7,000/-, the charge was that although the concerned account holder had a credit balance of Rs. 139.22, the petitioner added the figure of 7' and/or pre-fixed the figure of 7', so as to make the credit balance appear to be Rs. 7,139.22. The charge is that by resorting to this practice he has allowed the account holder to encash the cheque for Rs. 7,000/-. The second charge is that in an account interest payable was Rs. 9,963/- but the interest voucher was deliberately prepared by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 16,963/-. The last charge against the petitioner with regard to two cheques for Rs. 5,000/- each was that he has by pre-fixing the figure '1' at various places including the credit balance allowed those two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each to be encashed. Whereas, there was no appropriate credit balance and the cheques could not have been cleared in the normal course. For the purpose of proving the aforesaid charges the Bank has relied on the sole testimony of Shri Purushottam Chatterjee, who is supposed to be a handwriting expert. In course of this cross examination the said expert has deposed as follows :-

(3.) It would thus appear that Shri Chatterjee, on whose evidence or so to say the sole evidence on the basis of which, the Enquiry Officer recorded his finding, in his deposition in cross examination admitted that he is not even a graduate. He did not have any specialised training. He is supposed to have been in the panel of the legal remembrances but he admits that in the year 1970 when he visited the office of the Legal Remembrancer he did not find his name there. On the basis of the evidence of this witness the entire finding was recorded. Section 45 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 provides that the opinion of persons specially skilled is a relevant fact. Here is a witness, who has never undergone any training. Nor is there anything to show as to how does he stake his claim to be a skilled person in the matter of examining questioned documents.