Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.5.2011 Vijender Kumar ...Appellant Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against the order of dismissal from service of the appellant. 2. The workman was employed with the respondent bank and was served charge sheet dated 15.12.1989 alleging unauthorised pocketing of Rs.50,000/-. After enquiry, the said charge was held to be proved and order dated 11.6.1991 was passed dismissing the appellant from service. The order having been affirmed in departmental appeal, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide order dated 15.9.2003 held that Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 -2- **** enquiry was vitiated but allowed the parties to lead evidence. On that basis vide order dated 9.3.2010 the charge was held to be proved. The finding recorded is as under:- “I have also gone through the entire cross-examination of all the three witnesses and other materials on record. It is true that there is no direct evidence for fraudulently withdrawing of Rs.50,000/- and for stealing and destroying the withdrawal form and the relevant entry from the Long Book. But the following circumstances proved it beyond doubt that workman has committed the misconduct of fraudulently withdrawing an amount of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter stealing and destroying the withdrawal form:- 1. There was opportunity to the workman to commit this act. Before 1.12.1988 he was posted in the bank and as per the evidence of all the three witnesses mentioned above workman was working on the seat where it was possible to fraudulently withdraw the amount. 2. On 30.11.1988, the Manager of the Branch concerned Sh. O.P.Taneja tried to relieve the workman on his transfer to another branch. It is clear from the evidence of Sh. O.P.Taneja and Sh. R.S.Gupta that on the request of the workman he was not relieved on that day. Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 -3- **** 3. The workman thereafter was relieved by Sh. R.S.Gupta, who was officiating as Manager on 1.12.1988 afternoon. The workman had worked for entire day on 1.12.1988. In the ordinary course of nature, every person will prefer to hand over the charge on the last day of the month but the workman preferred to get him relieved on 1.12.1988 afternoon. 4. The important circumstances is that workman even after relieving from the branch concerned on 1.12.1988 afternoon visited the branch once again on 2.12.1988 and remained in the bank as per the evidence of co-workers from 10.30 AM to 12.00 noon particularly at the place where the voucher in question was kept for making entries in relevant register. The fact of visiting the workman to the branch concerned on 2.12.1988 is clearly established. There is no explanation on the part of the workman why he visited the branch on 2.12.1988 when he was relieved on previous day afternoon? 5. It is clearly established from the evidence of Sh. R.S.Gupta and Sh. O.P.Taneja that the workman admitted his charge in their presence and in the presence of father and brother-in-law of the Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 -4- **** workman, It is not denied by the workman that father and brother-in-law of the workman visited the bank. As stated earlier, both of the witnesses were cross- examined namely, Sh. R.S.Gupta and Sh. O.P.Taneja were cross examined on this issue very lightly. Only one question from each witness was asked about the FDR, which the witness replied in positive. No other question in cross-examination was asked regarding presence of father and brother-in-law of the workman in the branch concerned. It has been the contention of the workman that his father and brother-in-law were not cross-examined. The departmental proceedings and the proceedings before Administrative Tribunal are different in nature than the proceedings before Civil Courts and Criminal Courts. The provisions of Indian Evidence Act are not applicable strictly before the Administrative Tribunals and in departmental proceedings. In one of the judgments Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Iyyer has expressed his view that in departmental proceedings and proceedings before the Administrative Tribunals, there should be no allergy even to hearsay evidence if it has credibility. The fact of admission by workman and consequential act of father and brother-in-law of the workman handing over FDR of Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 -5- **** Rs.30,000/- and a withdrawal form of Rs.50,000/- has creditability as these facts have not been challenged by the workman in the proceedings before this Tribunal. Thus from the circumstances mentioned above, this fact is clearly established before this Tribunal that there was an opportunity to the workman to withdraw illegally and fraudulently an amount of Rs.50,000/- for which he was charged. He has also availed the opportunity for destroying the voucher concerned and relevant entry in Long Book by making his unnecessary and unexplained visit to the bank on 2.12.1988. This fact is further corroborated by the evidence of Sh. Chander Singh that on 2.12.1988 the workman remained present at the place where voucher was kept for the entry of Rs.50,000/- in relevant register. The purpose of his visit to the bank on 2.12.1988 is unexplained. Thus, the above circumstances, if taken together makes it clear that the intention of workman to destroy the voucher and relevant entry in Long Book was to conceal his illegal design for fraudulently withdrawing Rs.50,000/-. The charge leveled against the workman has been proved by the management before this Tribunal.” The aforesaid finding has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal No.1662 of 2010 -6- **** Learned counsel for the appellant states that there was no evidence to prove the charge and the inference drawn was not justified and beyond the charge sheet. We are unable to accept the submission. The Labour Court recorded its finding after due appreciation of evidence. The said finding could not be held to be perverse or unreasonable. Learned Single Judge has gone into the matter and affirmed the finding. We are unable to re-appreciate the evidence. In these circumstances, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 13, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge