Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh: The Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal of three State Bank of India (SBI) employees who were terminated on allegations of impersonation and ordered the bank to conduct a fresh departmental inquiry into the matter.
The order has been given by Justice Vikram D Chauhan on the petition of Sachin Kumar and others of Meerut.
State Bank of India (SBI) had announced a recruitment notification for clerk positions in 2009, and the petitioners were selected and appointed in 2010. After completing their probationary period, they were confirmed in service.
Later, the bank received complaints that these employees had used proxy persons and unfair means to pass the written examination.
In 2012 and 2013, the Bank suspended them following complaints of “fraudulent appointment” and “impersonation.” A charge-sheet was issued alleging they had adopted unfair means during the written examination. Following a disciplinary inquiry, the Regional Manager dismissed them on January 17, 2014, a decision later upheld by the Appellate Authority on March 11, 2015.
Departmental action was initiated and based on the report of the handwriting expert, all three were dismissed from service in 2014.
The petitioners argued that the dismissal was based solely on a handwriting expert’s report. They contended that no departmental witnesses, including the exam invigilator, were produced. They further argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert, which was a fatal flaw in the disciplinary proceedings.
The Bank opposed the petition, stating that the handwriting expert’s report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was sufficient evidence. The Bank maintained that since the petitioners had “accepted the authenticity and genuineness” of the report, the requirement for cross-examination did not arise. Their appeal was also dismissed in 2015.
The court found that no witnesses were produced in the departmental inquiry. The handwriting expert was not produced for cross-examination. The Court said that the petitioners were removed from service on the basis of handwriting report only.
The Court highlighted several procedural lapses by the Bank:
- The call letters contained the petitioners’ photographs, signatures, and thumb impressions, which were all verified by an invigilator at the time of the exam. This means that the invigilator had verified the petitioners at the time of the exam.
- The Court noted that the invigilator was himself a Bank employee and was the “best person” to certify the presence of the candidates, yet was never produced as a witness.
- The Court rejected the Bank’s argument that admitting the report’s “authenticity” waived the right to cross-examination. It held that admitting a document’s genuineness (that it wasn’t a forgery) does not mean admitting the truth of its contents or the accuracy of the expert’s conclusions.
The court stated that it is not appropriate to convict an employee solely on the basis of the opinion of a handwriting expert, especially when that opinion has not been verified in an investigation.
The court recognized that the right to cross-examination is an essential part of natural justice. Simply stating that the authenticity of the document is accepted does not mean that its findings cannot be challenged.
The Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were not fair, just, or reasonable. It set aside the dismissal orders dated January 17, 2014, and the appellate order dated March 11, 2015.
The Court granted the Bank liberty to hold a fresh disciplinary proceeding. It directed that if a fresh inquiry is conducted, all identity materials such as photographs, thumb impressions, and signatures must be considered.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
