IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9536 of 2004 Ram Bhagwan Singh son of Muneshwar Singh resident of village- Newari, P.S. & P.O. Taraiya, Dist. Saran. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour. 2. Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Siwan, Disciplinary Authority. 3. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, presiding Officer. --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 07 21.10.2011 Petitioner filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)to quash the order dated 16.10.2003, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the punishment of dismissal awarded by the management of Central Bank of India (for short ‘Bank’) under Clause 19(6) (A) of Bipartite Settlement, as contained in communication dated 29.12.1989 (Annexure-1) as well as the appellate order dated 28.05.1990 (Annexure-2), have been upheld. Short facts leading to the present application are as follows:- Petitioner was appointed as Armed Guard in Bank and in due course he was confirmed in the said service. The Bank has a promotional policy for the workmen serving as sub- staff Class-IV whereunder they are entitled to get straightway promotion in the clerical cadre/grade if he/she passes Madhyama standard of examination from any recognized Board of examination in first division. Petitioner claimed to have appeared in the Madhyama examination in the year 1986, conducted by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board ( for short ‘Board’) as private candidate through Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit High 2 School, Samhota, and claimed to have passed the said examination in first division. Petitioner, on the strength of the mark sheet/ certificate purportedly issued by the Board, claimed straightway promotion to the cadre of Clerk as per the said promotional policy of the Bank. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show cause notice dated 23.02.1988 asking his explanation as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for raising a claim based on false declaration/forged document showing the petitioner passed the said examination in first division as, on verification, it was found that the petitioner had obtained 3rd division in the said examination. Petitioner claims to have approached the headmaster of the concerned school who is said to have confirmed him that certificate of the Board given to him was genuine. Petitioner filed his reply to the show cause in which he asserted that the document produced by him was genuine and not fake. Not satisfied with the reply, the authorities of the Bank initiated a proceeding in which an article of charge was framed and served on him for submitting false certificate in order to claim straightway promotion in clerical cadre. A departmental enquiry ensued thereafter. At the enquiry, several documents were exhibited and oral evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties. On conclusion thereof, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, having considered the materials on record, issued another show cause notice dated 11.12.1989, to the petitioner indicating therein proposed punishment for his acts of gross misconduct meriting invocation of Clause 19(6) of the Bipartite Settlement to discharge him from Bank’s Service. Petitioner was 3 thereafter afforded personal hearing. On conclusion thereof, the disciplinary authority by order dated 29.12.1989 imposed the punishment of discharge from service. Aggrieved thereby he preferred appeal. The said appeal was considered and disposed of by order dated 28.5.90 (Annexure-2). The appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved thereby petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4261 of 2001 which was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2001 (Annexure-3) permitting the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the Labour Court where the issue had already been raised by the petitioner. The matter was thereafter considered by the Tribunal. The parties were heard at great length and the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal (respondent no.3), by an order dated 16th October, 2003 (Annexure-4), passed the following award:- “The action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing Shri Ram Bhagwan Singh, Armed Guard from the services of the Bank is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.” The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid award has approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the headmaster of the school, on query, confirmed that the mark sheet/certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine. 4 Petitioner having received the same from the headmaster produced the same before the authority claiming his promotion straightway as per the scheme/promotional policy. Even if the said document was subsequently found to be fake/forged no mens rea can be attached and the petitioner cannot be penalized on that count. It is contended that if the mark sheet/certificate produced by the petitioner were not found genuine the respondent Bank could have refused promotion but the order of discharge passed against him on that count is wholly uncalled for and/or arbitrary. Reliance in this regard has been placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 10820 of 1992 (Arun Kumar Singh vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.). Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned action. It is submitted that reliance placed on Arun Kumar Singh (Supra) is misplaced as the factual matrix of the present case are different and distinct inasmuch as the petitioner had approached this Court earlier whereafter this Court while refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction directed the petitioner to raise the dispute before the Tribunal whereafter the matter was considered in extenso by the Tribunal. Both the parties were given more than adequate opportunity to place their cases whereafter a finding has been recorded that the charges have rightly been held to be proved . Learned counsel placed relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal. It is highlighted that the findings with regard to commission of forgery has been held to have been established, and as such, this Court may not invoke its discretionary writ jurisdiction to unsettle the aforesaid findings. Learned counsel further contended with reference to Annexure-A to the counter 5 affidavit that this Court in identical fact situation refused to grant relief to the petitioner even after noticing the judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Singh (Supra). I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. There is no dispute that the mark-sheet/ certificate produced by the petitioner in support of his claim for straightway promotion in clerical cadre was subsequently found to be fake/forged. On perusal of the award, it appears that parties were granted more than adequate opportunity to substantiate their case. The Tribunal meticulously scrutinized the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties in the domestic enquiry and concluded as under:- “ Considering all aspects carefully I find sufficient reason to believe that the concerned workman was involved very much personally in procuring the fabricated marksheet only with a view to get his promotion in Clerical Cadre. This act on the part of the concerned workman amounts to an act of cheating and I consider that the management was justified in issuing charge sheet to the concerned workman. I have carefully considered all the materials evidence on record and I am satisfied that the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman.” “… Learned Advocate by referring the said decision submitted that the concerned workman cannot be considered as trust worthy employee of the bank and he may cause further damage to the Bank’s integrity if he is not punished properly. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above and also considering the submission of the management I find sufficient reason that the mischief which the concerned workman committed has to be considered as serious dereliction of duty which was not at all expected and for which he could not be considered as trust worthy staff of the management.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Arun Kumar 6 Singh (Supra) to submit that the order of discharge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be uncalled for and/or arbitrary. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent have relied on Maheshwar Pd. Singh (Supra) (Annexure-A) in order to demonstrate that the facts of the present case are akin to the facts of the aforesaid case where the learned Judge of this Court noticing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal refused to interfere. While holding so, learned Single Judge held that where two views are possible and the authorities have taken one of the views, this Court cannot substitute the said view. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot sit as a court of appeal and disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the application which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)