Summary
A bank sub-staff employee was compulsorily retired after a domestic enquiry, held fair by the Industrial Tribunal, found him guilty of unauthorised debits in a customer's account, coercing the manager into sanctioning loans to his father and wife, and tampering with bank records. The Tribunal nevertheless set aside the punishment for want of proof that he authored the entries, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had acted as an appellate court contrary to the settled limits of judicial review under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, applied criminal-law standards of proof instead of preponderance of probabilities, and wrongly treated compulsory retirement as denying retiral benefits; it restored the punishment.
Issues
- Whether the Industrial Tribunal, after holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper, could under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 re-appreciate the evidence and set aside the finding of guilt on the ground that the bank had not proved by expert evidence that the employee authored the disputed entries.
- What standard of proof applies in departmental proceedings and what is the scope of judicial review by a Tribunal or High Court over findings of a disciplinary authority.
- Whether the Tribunal and High Court were right to treat the punishment of compulsory retirement as too harsh and disproportionate, including on the footing that it would deny the employee retirement benefits.
- Whether findings by bank officers, based on naked-eye comparison of handwriting and initials, can support a finding of guilt in a domestic enquiry.
Provisions considered
- Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Tribunal's power to interfere with a punishment after a fair domestic enquiry is confined to cases where the finding is perverse or based on no evidence; it cannot convert itself into a court of appeal, revisit the evidence in toto or assume that the management must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal here exceeded that jurisdiction. (¶¶ 16, 32, 34, 39)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaAbsent jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, the High Court cannot enter the merits of a Tribunal's award as an appellate court; the High Court erred in confirming the award while adding irrelevant reasons of its own. (¶¶ 29, 36, 40)
Held
- In judicial review of a disciplinary punishment the court or Tribunal examines only whether the enquiry was held by a competent authority, whether natural justice was complied with, and whether the conclusions are based on no evidence or are perverse; strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental proceedings and the charge can be proved on a preponderance of probabilities. The reviewing forum does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority, which is the sole judge of facts. (¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 37)
- The Tribunal acted as an appellate authority when, despite its own finding that the irregular entries were highly probably made at the employee's insistence and that he was the beneficiary of the irregular loans, it set aside the punishment merely because the bank had not proved by handwriting-expert evidence that he authored the entries; it proceeded on the preconceived notion that criminal-trial standards of proof apply to disciplinary proceedings. (¶¶ 28, 34, 39)
- Findings by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority, both bank officers accustomed to comparing signatures in routine, that the disputed entries and alterations were in the employee's handwriting and initialled by him can rest on a naked-eye comparison from the perspective of a 'banker's eye'; no expert opinion was required. (¶¶ 35, 36)
- Absolute devotion, integrity and honesty are a sine qua non for every bank employee, who deals with depositors' money; loss of confidence in the employee is a relevant factor when assessing whether a punishment is disproportionate, and a bank may treat employees guilty of dishonesty or gross negligence as unfit to continue in service. (¶¶ 37, 38)
- Compulsory retirement does not deprive an employee of retirement benefits, which can be denied only on dismissal; the Tribunal erred in holding the punishment too harsh on the ground that reinstatement alone would secure retiral benefits, and the High Court erred in adding that the father's loan was validly sanctioned and that the bank suffered no loss, while ignoring the charge about loans to the wife. (¶¶ 29, 39, 40)
- Where the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority considered the evidence (19 documents and two witnesses, including the employee's own written admissions) and concurred in the finding of guilt, their orders could not be said to be based on no evidence or perverse, and the punishment of compulsory retirement is affirmed. (¶¶ 25, 26, 39, 41)
Result
Appeal disposed of; Tribunal's award dated 25.09.2019 and High Court judgment dated 12.08.2022 set aside; bank's writ petition allowed; Disciplinary Authority's order of compulsory retirement dated 15.03.2006 affirmed, the respondent remaining entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits in accordance with law; pending applications disposed of.