Case: The Management Of State Bank Of India Vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh

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.3. 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 impugnedThe 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 employers 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."

Court's reasoning:
4. 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.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.6. 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.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.9. 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 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.13. 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.