Page 1

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.  

2. 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

1

Page 2

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 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

2

Page 3

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.”  

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,

3

Page 4

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

4

Page 5

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.....”

5. 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 5

Page 6

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. (See - Union of India v.  H.C. Goel1) .   7. In the case of Bank of India and another v. Degala

Suryanarayana2,  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

1  (1964) 4 SCR 718 2  (1999) 5 SCC 762

6

Page 7

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. …”

8. 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.

10. Despite the factual and legal position as above, we had

made one more attempt for the verification of the certificate

7

Page 8

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.”

11. 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

8

Page 9

(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”

12. Despite the clear position as above, the employee filed

a response on 13.01.2017 reiterating that she had “... actually

9

Page 10

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.

10

Page 11

14. 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.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

............................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)

............................J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR)                            

NEW DELHI; MARCH 1, 2017.

11