In Brief
A nationalized bank dismissed an employee (clerk-cum-cashier) for fraud, forgery, and insubordination after departmental inquiry. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the dismissal, but the High Court set aside the finding on forgery charges (4 and 5), requiring expert handwriting analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that in disciplinary proceedings, the lower standard of preponderance of probability applies (not criminal proof standards). The inquiry officer's signature comparison, corroborated by credible testimony from the sister-in-law whose accounts were fraudulently opened and funds misappropriated, sufficiently proved forgery without mandatory expert evidence. The Court upheld the dismissal as proportionate to the established misconduct.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.