REPORTABLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3423 OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 33070/2013)
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) is aggrieved by
the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the first respondent
(hereinafter referred to as “the employee”) was directed to be reinstated
in service with 50 per cent back wages, reversing the order passed by the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The employee, while working with the
Management, submitted a certificate purportedly issued by the Indian
Institute of Bankers claiming that she had passed the CAIIB Part-II
Examination, and on that basis, started drawing additional monetary
benefits. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the finding in a domestic
enquiry that the certificate was a forged one, dismissed her from service
on 01.08.2003. The punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 10.06.2006. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court declined
to grant any relief. However, the High Court ordered reinstatement with 50
per cent back wages, and thus aggrieved, the Management has filed the
appeal.
The only ground on which the High Court interfered with the award was that
the Management had not established, by leading evidence, that the employee
was aware of the fact that the certificate produced before the Management
was forged. To quote from impugned judgment:
“6. The question, therefore, before the Enquiry Officer was whether the
petitioner knew at the time of submission of the forged document that it
was forged one. The Presenting Officer in the domestic enquiry did not lead
any evidence to prove the knowledge and it appears that everyone went on
presuming that the petitioner knew about the forgery since prior to its
production before the employer. Due to the fact that she produced it on the
employer’s record and that she received monetary benefits because of such
production, every one believed that she ought to know that it was a
forgery. This conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is grossly incorrect
because it is based on guess work. He could have said that there is strong
doubt in his mind that the petitioner knew before hand that the certificate
was a forgery. But, he ought to have asked the Presenting Officer to lead
further evidence to prove that the petitioner knew that the document she
produced was forgery. Neither the Presenting Officer realised this gross
lacuna in their case. On the basis of this guess and doubt, the enquiry
officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. This, in my view was
grossly incorrect decision.”
We find it difficult to appreciate the strange stand taken by the High
Court. The Labour Court had clearly analysed the entire evidence and had
come to the conclusion that the employee was fully aware of the forgery.
The Tribunal took note of the fact that she had produced a copy of the
postal receipt of dispatching the certificate from the Institute of Bankers
in her evidence but failed to explain the source of the postal receipt. It
also took note of the fact that the alleged certificate of having passed
the examination is dated 04.09.2000. If that be so, there was no occasion
for asking for any re-verification of the marks by filing an
application dated 08.09.2000. Still further, the Court extensively referred
to the reply furnished by the Institute of Bankers and came to the
conclusion that the certificate was a forged one. To quote from paragraph-
10 of the award dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court:
“10. ....The workman has claimed that she received the pass certificates
from the Indian Institute of Bankers by registered speed post in her home
address and filed the same before the authority. In support of her claim,
she filed an envelope to show that the certificate in question was sent to
her in the said envelop by the Indian Institute of Bankers. However, from
by merely filing of the envelope, it cannot be held that the certificate in
question was sent by the Institute in question to the workman in the said
envelope. Moreover, there are other suspicious circumstances which create
doubt regarding the said claim of the workman. If the certificate was
actually sent in the said envelop by the Indian Institute of Bankers by
registered speed post from Mumbai to the workman in her home address, then
the receipt granted by the post office for sending the envelop by
registered speed post must have been granted to the institute and the
institute should have in possession of the same in the office, to keep
account of the same, but the workman has also filed the zerox copy of the
receipt alongwith of the envelope, to show the date of dispatch of the
envelope, but she did not say how she was in possession of the said postal
receipt. It is also pleaded by the workman in the statement of claim that
she failed in part II of CAIIB examination and applied for verification of
marks visiting in person to CAIIB office at Mumbai and on verification and
revaluation, she was declared pass. In the statement of claim she had not
mentioned the date of her visit to CAIIB office. However, she has filed the
zerox copy of the letter, Exhibit W-17 to show that she applied for
revaluation of her answer paper and the said letter shows that it was
submitted on 18.9.2000. However, Exhibit W-15, filed by the workman shows
that by letter dated 4.9.2000, she was intimated by the Indian Institute of
Bankers that she had completed the Associate examination of the Institute
and is entitled to receive the relevant certificate. If the workman had
received the intimation of completion of the examination, then there was no
question of her applying for revaluation of the examination paper and if
she had failed in the examination and she approached the Institute for
revaluation of her answer paper on 18.09.2000, then there was no question
of the Institute intimating her by letter dated 04.09.2000 regarding her
completion of the examination and issuance of the certificate. So it is
clear from the materials produced by the parties in the departmental
proceedings that the workman knowingly produced the pass certificate of
part II CAIIB examination, which was a fabricated one, for monetary gain on
ongoing basis and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the
materials on record and are not perverse.....”
The evidence led by the employee, as rightly appreciated by the Industrial
Tribunal, would clearly show that she had the knowledge that the document
she produced was a forged one. Therefore, there was no requirement on the
part of the Management to establish whether she had known, at the time of
submission of the document, that it was a forged one.
It is a well-settled principle that the High Court will not
re-appreciate the evidence but will only see whether there is
evidence in support of the impugned conclusion. The court has to take the
evidence as it stands and its only limited jurisdiction is to examine,
whether on the evidence, the conclusion could have been arrived at. (See -
Union of India v. H.C. Goel[1]) .
In the case of Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana[2], after
referring to H.C. Goel case (supra), this Court held at paragraph-11 :-
“11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry
proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the
delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a
reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a
finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent
officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt
even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the
jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of
fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case
of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a
finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark
upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate
authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion
arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. …”
We do not think it necessary to refer to any other judgments on the same
point, since the same principle has been only followed and reiterated in
all those decisions.
In the case before us, it is an admitted position that the certificate
produced by the employee is a forged one. It has been categorically found
by the Industrial Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, that the employee was
fully aware of the fact that the document was a forged one. In such
circumstances, there is no basis at all for the stand taken by the High
Court that the Management did not establish that the employee had knowledge
about the certificate being a forged one.
Despite the factual and legal position as above, we had made one more
attempt for the verification of the certificate from the Institute of
Bankers. Thus, on 08.08.2016, this Court passed the following order:
“The Deputy Director (Examinations) of The Indian Institute of Bankers
shall inform this Court as to whether the candidate Mrs. S. S. Deshmukh
(Membership No. 5880536) had actually applied for revaluation of Part II of
CAIIB Examination in the year 2000 and what is the action taken on that
application and also whether the action thus taken, was informed to Mrs.
Deshmukh.
Needless to say that in the report, it would be made clear that whether
Mrs. Deshmukh had actually passed in the revaluation.
The report shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court within four
weeks from today.
The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Director,
Indian Institute of Bankers forthwith.
In addition, a copy of this order be given Dasti to the parties for
communication.
Post on 21.09.2016.”
The Institute has, by its letter dated 03.09.2016, informed this Court
that:
“Ref : IIBF/CO/EXAM/4832/2016 3rd September, 2016
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg,
New Delhi-110 201
(India)
Sir,
Re: SLP (C) No. 33070/2013
In the matter of –
The Management of State Bank of India
v/s
Smita Sharad Deshmukh & Another.
This has reference to order date the 8th August, 2016 by the Hon’ble Court
in the captioned matter interalia seeking details from the Institute as to
whether the candidate Mrs. S.S. Deshmukh (Membership No. 5880536) had
actually applied for revaluation of part II of CAIIB Examination.
In this connection this is to inform that Mrs. Deshmukh had appeared for
following 2 subjects in May/June 2000 Examination conducted by the
Institute and has secured the marks shown against each of the subjects.
1. Practice & Law of Banking – 45 Marks
2. Indian Economics Problem – 23 Marks
This is to inform further that the Institute has provision only for
verification of marks and no request was received from Mrs. Deshmukh for
verification of marks in connection with above said examination.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Joint Director)
Examination”
Despite the clear position as above, the employee filed a response on
13.01.2017 reiterating that she had “... actually applied for revaluation
of Part II of CAIIB Examination in the year 2000 ...”. A copy of the
application also was produced along with reply as Annexure-R1. It is a
handwritten letter by the Management-Bank to the Institute of Bankers on
08.09.2000 but enclosing a draft dated 14.09.2000. There is also an
alleged endorsement of receipt of the letter by the Institute on 18.09.2000
on hand delivery. It may be noted that the forged certificate of pass in
the examination and the memorandum accompanying it are dated 04.09.2000.
One wonders as to what was the need for revaluation once a candidate had
been declared successful on 04.09.2000, leave alone the anachronic error on
the dates on the application and the draft! We reluctantly refrain from
making any further observations in this regard.
Though learned counsel for the employee made a persuasive attempt for
modification of punishment on the ground of disproportionality, in view of
the conduct of the employee which we have referred to above, we are not
inclined to take a different view from that taken by the Disciplinary
Authority, Appellate Authority and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court.
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is
allowed. However, we make it clear that there shall be no recovery of the
wages and benefits already paid to her.
There shall be no order as to costs.
............................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
............................J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 1, 2017.
-----------------------
[1] (1964) 4 SCR 718
[2] (1999) 5 SCC 762
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3423 OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 33070/2013)
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) is aggrieved by
the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the first respondent
(hereinafter referred to as “the employee”) was directed to be reinstated
in service with 50 per cent back wages, reversing the order passed by the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The employee, while working with the
Management, submitted a certificate purportedly issued by the Indian
Institute of Bankers claiming that she had passed the CAIIB Part-II
Examination, and on that basis, started drawing additional monetary
benefits. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the finding in a domestic
enquiry that the certificate was a forged one, dismissed her from service
on 01.08.2003. The punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 10.06.2006. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court declined
to grant any relief. However, the High Court ordered reinstatement with 50
per cent back wages, and thus aggrieved, the Management has filed the
appeal.
The only ground on which the High Court interfered with the award was that
the Management had not established, by leading evidence, that the employee
was aware of the fact that the certificate produced before the Management
was forged. To quote from impugned judgment:
“6. The question, therefore, before the Enquiry Officer was whether the
petitioner knew at the time of submission of the forged document that it
was forged one. The Presenting Officer in the domestic enquiry did not lead
any evidence to prove the knowledge and it appears that everyone went on
presuming that the petitioner knew about the forgery since prior to its
production before the employer. Due to the fact that she produced it on the
employer’s record and that she received monetary benefits because of such
production, every one believed that she ought to know that it was a
forgery. This conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is grossly incorrect
because it is based on guess work. He could have said that there is strong
doubt in his mind that the petitioner knew before hand that the certificate
was a forgery. But, he ought to have asked the Presenting Officer to lead
further evidence to prove that the petitioner knew that the document she
produced was forgery. Neither the Presenting Officer realised this gross
lacuna in their case. On the basis of this guess and doubt, the enquiry
officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. This, in my view was
grossly incorrect decision.”
We find it difficult to appreciate the strange stand taken by the High
Court. The Labour Court had clearly analysed the entire evidence and had
come to the conclusion that the employee was fully aware of the forgery.
The Tribunal took note of the fact that she had produced a copy of the
postal receipt of dispatching the certificate from the Institute of Bankers
in her evidence but failed to explain the source of the postal receipt. It
also took note of the fact that the alleged certificate of having passed
the examination is dated 04.09.2000. If that be so, there was no occasion
for asking for any re-verification of the marks by filing an
application dated 08.09.2000. Still further, the Court extensively referred
to the reply furnished by the Institute of Bankers and came to the
conclusion that the certificate was a forged one. To quote from paragraph-
10 of the award dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court:
“10. ....The workman has claimed that she received the pass certificates
from the Indian Institute of Bankers by registered speed post in her home
address and filed the same before the authority. In support of her claim,
she filed an envelope to show that the certificate in question was sent to
her in the said envelop by the Indian Institute of Bankers. However, from
by merely filing of the envelope, it cannot be held that the certificate in
question was sent by the Institute in question to the workman in the said
envelope. Moreover, there are other suspicious circumstances which create
doubt regarding the said claim of the workman. If the certificate was
actually sent in the said envelop by the Indian Institute of Bankers by
registered speed post from Mumbai to the workman in her home address, then
the receipt granted by the post office for sending the envelop by
registered speed post must have been granted to the institute and the
institute should have in possession of the same in the office, to keep
account of the same, but the workman has also filed the zerox copy of the
receipt alongwith of the envelope, to show the date of dispatch of the
envelope, but she did not say how she was in possession of the said postal
receipt. It is also pleaded by the workman in the statement of claim that
she failed in part II of CAIIB examination and applied for verification of
marks visiting in person to CAIIB office at Mumbai and on verification and
revaluation, she was declared pass. In the statement of claim she had not
mentioned the date of her visit to CAIIB office. However, she has filed the
zerox copy of the letter, Exhibit W-17 to show that she applied for
revaluation of her answer paper and the said letter shows that it was
submitted on 18.9.2000. However, Exhibit W-15, filed by the workman shows
that by letter dated 4.9.2000, she was intimated by the Indian Institute of
Bankers that she had completed the Associate examination of the Institute
and is entitled to receive the relevant certificate. If the workman had
received the intimation of completion of the examination, then there was no
question of her applying for revaluation of the examination paper and if
she had failed in the examination and she approached the Institute for
revaluation of her answer paper on 18.09.2000, then there was no question
of the Institute intimating her by letter dated 04.09.2000 regarding her
completion of the examination and issuance of the certificate. So it is
clear from the materials produced by the parties in the departmental
proceedings that the workman knowingly produced the pass certificate of
part II CAIIB examination, which was a fabricated one, for monetary gain on
ongoing basis and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the
materials on record and are not perverse.....”
The evidence led by the employee, as rightly appreciated by the Industrial
Tribunal, would clearly show that she had the knowledge that the document
she produced was a forged one. Therefore, there was no requirement on the
part of the Management to establish whether she had known, at the time of
submission of the document, that it was a forged one.
It is a well-settled principle that the High Court will not
re-appreciate the evidence but will only see whether there is
evidence in support of the impugned conclusion. The court has to take the
evidence as it stands and its only limited jurisdiction is to examine,
whether on the evidence, the conclusion could have been arrived at. (See -
Union of India v. H.C. Goel[1]) .
In the case of Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana[2], after
referring to H.C. Goel case (supra), this Court held at paragraph-11 :-
“11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry
proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the
delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a
reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a
finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent
officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt
even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the
jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of
fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case
of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a
finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark
upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate
authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion
arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. …”
We do not think it necessary to refer to any other judgments on the same
point, since the same principle has been only followed and reiterated in
all those decisions.
In the case before us, it is an admitted position that the certificate
produced by the employee is a forged one. It has been categorically found
by the Industrial Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, that the employee was
fully aware of the fact that the document was a forged one. In such
circumstances, there is no basis at all for the stand taken by the High
Court that the Management did not establish that the employee had knowledge
about the certificate being a forged one.
Despite the factual and legal position as above, we had made one more
attempt for the verification of the certificate from the Institute of
Bankers. Thus, on 08.08.2016, this Court passed the following order:
“The Deputy Director (Examinations) of The Indian Institute of Bankers
shall inform this Court as to whether the candidate Mrs. S. S. Deshmukh
(Membership No. 5880536) had actually applied for revaluation of Part II of
CAIIB Examination in the year 2000 and what is the action taken on that
application and also whether the action thus taken, was informed to Mrs.
Deshmukh.
Needless to say that in the report, it would be made clear that whether
Mrs. Deshmukh had actually passed in the revaluation.
The report shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court within four
weeks from today.
The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Director,
Indian Institute of Bankers forthwith.
In addition, a copy of this order be given Dasti to the parties for
communication.
Post on 21.09.2016.”
The Institute has, by its letter dated 03.09.2016, informed this Court
that:
“Ref : IIBF/CO/EXAM/4832/2016 3rd September, 2016
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg,
New Delhi-110 201
(India)
Sir,
Re: SLP (C) No. 33070/2013
In the matter of –
The Management of State Bank of India
v/s
Smita Sharad Deshmukh & Another.
This has reference to order date the 8th August, 2016 by the Hon’ble Court
in the captioned matter interalia seeking details from the Institute as to
whether the candidate Mrs. S.S. Deshmukh (Membership No. 5880536) had
actually applied for revaluation of part II of CAIIB Examination.
In this connection this is to inform that Mrs. Deshmukh had appeared for
following 2 subjects in May/June 2000 Examination conducted by the
Institute and has secured the marks shown against each of the subjects.
1. Practice & Law of Banking – 45 Marks
2. Indian Economics Problem – 23 Marks
This is to inform further that the Institute has provision only for
verification of marks and no request was received from Mrs. Deshmukh for
verification of marks in connection with above said examination.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Joint Director)
Examination”
Despite the clear position as above, the employee filed a response on
13.01.2017 reiterating that she had “... actually applied for revaluation
of Part II of CAIIB Examination in the year 2000 ...”. A copy of the
application also was produced along with reply as Annexure-R1. It is a
handwritten letter by the Management-Bank to the Institute of Bankers on
08.09.2000 but enclosing a draft dated 14.09.2000. There is also an
alleged endorsement of receipt of the letter by the Institute on 18.09.2000
on hand delivery. It may be noted that the forged certificate of pass in
the examination and the memorandum accompanying it are dated 04.09.2000.
One wonders as to what was the need for revaluation once a candidate had
been declared successful on 04.09.2000, leave alone the anachronic error on
the dates on the application and the draft! We reluctantly refrain from
making any further observations in this regard.
Though learned counsel for the employee made a persuasive attempt for
modification of punishment on the ground of disproportionality, in view of
the conduct of the employee which we have referred to above, we are not
inclined to take a different view from that taken by the Disciplinary
Authority, Appellate Authority and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court.
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is
allowed. However, we make it clear that there shall be no recovery of the
wages and benefits already paid to her.
There shall be no order as to costs.
............................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
............................J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 1, 2017.
-----------------------
[1] (1964) 4 SCR 718
[2] (1999) 5 SCC 762
