Civil Appeal No 495 of 1979
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 18th October 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 1292 of 1975
RR Garg UR Lalit and Randhir Jain for the Appellant
MC Bhandare SA Shroff SS Shroff and Miss CK Sachurita for Respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM J
This appeal by special leave is by the appellant JD Jain
who was a workman and whose services have been terminated by the management of the State Bank of India hereinafter called the respondent
230 2
The material facts are these
The appellant was working as a cashier in the Meerut City Branch of the State Bank of India
On June 21 1971 one Dishan Prakash Kansal  Kansal  for short who had a Savings Bank account with the said branch of the State Bank came to the Bank to receive 3 his Pass Book
On receipt of the Pass Book from the counter clerk Kansal complained to Wadhera who was the Ledger keeper that on February 8 1971 he had withdrawn only Rs 500 but a debit entry of Rs 1500 had been shown in the Pass Book
Wadhera thereupon took Kansal to the the Supervisor RP Gupta before whom Kansal repeated his complaint
Necessary documents pertaining to the said withdrawal were then examined and it was found that Kansal had given a letter of authority  which expression means we are told the withdrawal application form to the appellant on February 8 1971 authorising him to withdraw the amount from his account
The letter of authority showed that it was for withdrawal of Rs 1500 though there appeared to be some interpolation suggesting that the figure of Rs 500 had been altered to the figure of Rs 1500
The matter was then brought to the notice of M Ramzan the Agent of the State Bank before whom also Kansal is said to have repeated his complaint
Eventually on September 18 1972 a memorandum of charges was served on the appellant by the respondent stating inter alia that in the letter of authority the appellant altered in his own handwriting with different ink the amount of Rs 500 to Rs 1500 and thus received Rs 1000 in excess passing only Rs 500 to the pass book holder and that he subsequently on June 24 1971 deposited Rs 250 in the account of Kansal to liquidate a part or the amount misappropriated by him
The appellant replied to the charges
He denied the allegations
Thereupon the respondent appointed one Rajendra Prasad as an Enquiry officer and a formal disciplinary enquiry was held against the appellant
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent on February 13 1973
The findings of the Enquiry officer were that The appellant had fraudulently altered the amount in the letter of authority given to him by Kansal withdrew Rs 1500 from Kansal s account and paid Rs 500 only to Kansal and misappropriated Rs 1000
The disciplinary authority on receipt of the report of the Enquiry officer passed the following order material portion only 231 2
Although the charges against you are of a serious nature which would in normal course warrant your dismissal from the service of the Bank yet keeping in view your past record I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter
Upon consideration of the matter I have tentatively come to the decision that your misconduct be condoned and you be merely discharged of in terms of paragraphs 521 5 e of the Sastry Award read with para graph 1828 of the Desai Award and paragraph 11 of the Agreement dated the 31st March 1967 entered into between the Bank and the State Bank of India Staff Federation
Before however I take a final decision in the matter I would like to give you a hearing as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon you
To enable you to do so I enclose copies of the proceedings of the enquiry and findings of the Enquiry officer
You may ask for a hearing or if you so prefer show cause in writing within one week of receipt by you thereof
If you fail therein I will conclude that you have no cause to show in this behalf
 The appellant then submitted a representation to Shri VB Chadha the Regional Manager of the State Bank of India on June 15 1973
Shri Chadha after perusing the representation of the appellant and hearing him in person recommended that the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon the appellant on the grounds that Kansal had not been examined as a witness and that there had been no written complaint against the appellant
The respondent however did not accept the recommendation and by its memorandum of December 7 1973 discharged the appellant from service with effect from the close of the business on December 22 1973
The appellant then having raised an industrial dispute the Central Government by its order dated January 17 1975 referred the following issue to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Delhi for adjudication Is the management of State Bank of India justified in discharging from service Shri JD Jain Cashier of Meerut Branch with effect from 22nd December 1973 If not to what relief is he entitled  232 5
Before the Tribunal the appellant denied the charges He inter alia pleaded that as Kansal was not examined in the enquiry there was no legal evidence before the inquiry officer for a finding that he was guilty
The Tribunal framed the following two issues 1
Whether a proper and valid domestic enquiry was held by the Bank and its effect  2
Is the management of State Bank of India justified in discharging from service Shri JD Jain Cashier of Meerut Branch with effect from 22nd December 1973  If not to what relief is he entitled  Before the Tribunal the Management examined no witnesses but produced certain documents and relied on them
The appellant also did not adduce any evidence
On a perusal of the evidence recorded by the Enquiry officer the Tribunal held that on the evidence before it the appellant could not be held guilty as according to it in the absence of the evidence of Kansal the evidence recorded was hearsay with the result that it directed reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages from 22nd December 1973
The respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award of the Tribunal
The High Court held that the charges against the appellant had been established and quashed the award of the Tribunal
It is against this judgment of the High Court that the present appeal by special leave is directed
Mr RK Garg learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes three submissions before us 1 That the Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 11 A of the and the High  Court exercising powers under Article 2261227 of the Constitution had no jurisdiction to interfere with the award of the Tribunal 2 The Tribunal in the perspective of the broad contours of the case rightly refused to rely on the evidence which was hearsay Kansal not having been examined 233 3 Assuming the evidence could be relied on the High Court committed error in not considering the receipt executed by Kansal showing payment of Rs 1000 to Kansal and its judgment is vitiated
In an application for a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited
It can quash the award inter alia when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record or when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is perverse
In the case before us according to the Tribunal as Kansal was not examined the evidence before it was hearsay and as such on the basis thereof the appellant could not be legally found guilty
Before the Enquiry officer the respondent examined the following witnesses Gupta Witness 1 Wadhera the Ledger Keeper Witness 2 Mahesh Chander who was incharge of Savings Bank account on 821971 Witness 3 M Ramzan Agent of the Bank Witness 4 Sarkar Witness 5 and Bhardwaj Witness 6
Bhardwaj was a leader of the employees  union of the respondent
He did not support the case of the respondent
The other witnesses supported the case of the respondent
Witnesses Nos 1 2 4 and 5 depose that a verbal complaint was made by Kansal in their presence to the effect that he had authorised the appellant to withdraw Rs 500 which sum was paid to him but the entries showed that Kansal had withdrawn Rs 1500
Witnesses Vadhera Ramzan and Sarkar also deposed that the appellant had confessed before them that he had made the alterations in the figure and in words of the sum
The Tribunal after having made detailed references to the evidence of the above witnesses in fact found All that this evidence thus proves is that a complaint was made by Shri Kansal and that the workmen confessed that he had altered the debit authority
emphasis added
Curiously however it held This evidence by no means prove that the workman altered the debit authority to defraud or that he actually defrauded or that he mis
appropriated the amount of Rs 1000 after paying Rs 500 only to Mr Kansal from the amount of Rs 1500 withdrawn from the bank by him as it was not direct evidence but was in the nature of 234 hearsay evidence since it was learnt through the medium of a third person and that person was not available
 It further held There can be no hesitation therefore that the enquiry officer relied on hearsay evidence in arriving at his findings and it vitiated the enquiry
 It went on All this could be enough for raising a suspicion only
In order to be called proved  it needed evidence which was not there
 It further observed But the question was whether it was done without the consent or knowledge of Mr Kansal
There was no evidence on the record to prove it
The only person who could speak about it was Mr Kansal
He did not appear before the inquiry officer therefore there was no direct evidence that the change that was admittedly made by the workman in the debit authority was without Mr Kansal s consent or knowledge or that it was designed to defraud  emphasis added The positive findings of the Tribunal are i Kansal made the complaint as alleged by the management
ii The appellant confessed that he had made the alterations charged with as alleged by the management iii By implication it has also found that Rs 1000 in excess of the original amount of Rs 500 was received by the appellant as a result of the alternations
But it has held that as Kansal was not examined fraud and misappropriation on the part of the appellant cannot be held to be proved as the evidence was hearsay 
The learned Tribunal it appears was obvious of the fact that it was examining the evidence in a domestic enquiry and not the evidence in a criminal prosecution entailing conviction and sentence
In a case like the one before us three kinds of proceedings against the delinquent are possible 
i departmental proceedings and action ii original prosecution for forgery and misappropriation iii civil proceedings for recovery of the amount alleged to be misappropriated
235 The respondent herein adopted course i and instituted the domestic enquiry in which the principle applied by the Tribunal is not applicable in such an enquiry guilt need not be established beyond reasonable doubt proof of misconduct may be sufficient
The learned Tribunal has committed another error in holding that the finding of the domestic enquiry was based on hearsay evidence
The law is well settled that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a domestic enquiry
This Court in the case of State of Haryana  Anr
vs Rattan Singh held It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply
All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible
There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility
The next question is is the evidence in the domestic enquiry really hearsay as held by the Tribunal  The word hearsay  is used in various senses
Some times it means whatever a person is heard to say some times it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone else
See Stephen on Law of Evidence
The Privy Council it the case of Subramaniam vs
Public Prosecutor observed Evidence of a statement made to a witness who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay
It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of that is contained in the statement
lt is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made
The fact that it was made quite apart from its truth is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or some other persons in whose presence these statements are made 236 11
In the instant case the alleged misconduct of the appellant was that he forged documents withdrew Rs 1500
1000 in excess of the amount he was authorised to do and misappropriated the excess amount of Rs 1000
With regard to the fact whether the appellant manipulated the documents withdrew excess amount and misappropriated it there is of course no direct evidence of any eye witness except the appellant s confession  referred to above
The evidence on which reliance has been taken by the respondent is the confession and circumstantial evidence namely the authority letter containing the admitted interpolations by the appellant in his own handwriting in different ink and the addition of the digit I before 500
The evidence of Kansal would have been primary and material if the fact in issue were whether Kansal authorised the appellant to make the alterations in the authority letter
But Kansal s complaint was to the contrary
For the purpose of a departmental enquiry complaint certainly not frivolous but substantiated by circumstantial evidence is enough
What the respondent sought to establish in the domestic enquiry was that Kansal had made a verbal complaint with regard to 1 the withdrawal of excess money by the appellant in presence of the four witnesses namely Wadhera Gupta Ramzan and Sarkar aforesaid against his advice
On the complaint of Kansal the evidence of these four witnesses is direct as the complaint is said to have been made by Kansal in their presence and hearing it is therefore not hearsay
As the respondent has succeeded in proving that a come plaint was made by Kansal on the evidence of the above named four witnesses the respondent has succeeded
No rule of law enjoins that complaint has to be in writing as insisted by the Tribunal
The learned Tribunal has committed yet another grevious error in failing to appreciate the confessions made by the appellant in the presence of witnesses and to the higher officer who appeared as witness as found by itself namely Wadhera Ramzan Gupta and Sarkar aforesaid
The confessions of the appellant before the said witnesses were to the effect that he had altered the amount in figure and words in his own hand
The award of the Tribunal therefore has been vitiated by misconception of the law involved in the case
The last submission of Mr Garg that the judgment of the High Court had been vitiated as it had not taken into consideration the receipt executed by Kansal showing payment by the appellant of Rs 1000 to the former is destructive of the appellant s defence
In 237 Our opinion this payment on the contrary proves the respondent s case and destroys the appellant s defence which was that he had withdrawn Rs 1500 as advised by Kansal and paid the full amount to Kansal
In our opinion the High Court was fully in its jurisdiction in quashing the award of the Tribunal
This appeal has no merit and is dismissed
We however leave the parties to bear their own costs
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Appellant was working as a Cashier in a Bank
A depositor who had a Savings Bank Account with the Bank came to the Bank to receive his Pass Book
On receipt of his Pass Book from the Counter Clerk he complained to the ledger keeper that on a certain date he had withdrawn only Rs 500 but a debit entry of Rs 1500 had been shown in the Pass Book
The Ledger keeper took the depositor to the Supervisor and The Agent and his complaint was recorded
When the documents pertaining to the withdrawal were examined it was found that the depositor had given a letter of authority to the appellant authorising withdrawal from his account
The letter of authority showed that it was for withdrawal of Rs 1500 though there appeared to be some interpolation suggesting that the figure of Rs 500 had been altered lo the figure of Rs 1500
A memorandum of charge was served on the appellant by the Management respondent No I and a disciplinary enquiry was held
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and his findings were that the appellant had fraudulently altered the amount in the letter of authority given by the depositor withdrew Rs 1500 from the depositor s account and paid Rs 500 only to the depositor and 228 misappropriated Rs 1500
In pursuance of the enquiry the appellant was discharged from service
The appellant having raised an industrial dispute the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal
Before the Tribunal the appellant denied the charges and pleaded that as the depositor was not examined in the disciplinary enquiry there was no legal evidence before the Enquiry officer for finding that he was guilty
Before the Tribunal the Management examined no witnesses but produced documents and relied on them
The Tribunal held that on the evidence before it the appellant could not be held guilty as in the absence of the evidence of the depositor the evidence recorded was hearsay  and directed reinstatement to the appellant with full back wages
The respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 and 227 which held that the charge against the appellant had been established and quashed the award of the Tribunal
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 1 that the Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 11 A of the and the High Court exercising powers under Article 226227 had no jurisdiction to interfere with the award 2 the Tribunal rightly refused to rely on the evidence which was hearsay the depositor not having been examined and 3 the High Court committed an error in not considering the receipt executed by the depositor showing payment of Rs 1000 to the depositor
Dismissing the appeal  HELD The award of the Tribunal is vitiated by misconception of the law involved
It erred in holding that as Kansal depositor was not examined fraud and misappropriation on the part of appellant cannot be held to be proved and in failing to appreciate the confession made by the appellant to the higher officer that he had altered the amount in figures and words in his own hand
236 G 1
In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 for quashing the award of an Industrial Tribunal the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited
It can quash the award when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record or when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is perverse
233 B In the instant case three kinds of proceedings against the delinquent were possible i departmental proceedings and action ii Criminal prosecution for the alleged misappropriation of the amount and iii civil proceedings for recovery of the amount alleged to be misappropriated
The respondent adopted the first course and instituted the domestic enquiry
In such an enquiry guilt need not be established beyond reasonable doubt proof of misconduct may be sufficient
234 G 235 A State of Haryana  Anr
vs Rattan Singh  referred to 229 2
The word hearsay  is used in various senses
Sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone else
235 E In the instant case the Tribunal after having made a detailed reference to the evidence of the witnesses found that a complaint was made by Kansal and that the appellant confessed that he had altered the debit authority but held That as Kansal was not examined this was not direct evidence but was of the nature of hearsay  evidence with regard to the fact whether the appellant manipulated the documents withdrew the excess amount and misappropriated it there is no direct evidence of any of the witnesses except the appellant s confession
The evidence on which reliance has been taken by the respondent is the confession and circumstantial evidence
The evidence of Kansal would have been primary and material
if the fact in issue were whether Kansal authorised the appellant to make the alterations in the authority letter
But Kansal s complaint was to the contrary
No rule of law enjoins that a complaint has to be in writing as insisted by the Tribunal
For the purpose of a departmental enquiry complaint substantiated by circumstantial evidence is enough
What the respondent sought to establish in the domestic enquiry was that Kansal had made a verbal complaint with regard to the withdrawal of excess money by the appellant
On the factum of complaint of Kansal the evidence of these four witnessess is direct as the complaint is said to have been made by Kansal in their presence and hearing
It is not therefore hearsay 
The respondent has succeeded in proving that a complaint was made by Kansal on the evidence of these four witnesses
236 A E Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor 19561 WLR 965 referred to 3
The receipt executed by Kansal showing payment by the appellant of Rs 1000 to the former is destructive of the appellant s defence and on the contrary proves the respondent s case
236 H 237A