(कोर्ट ने Handwriting Expert के विचार को निश्चित साक्षय नहीं माना )
IN THE YEAR AUG-2017 A PSU BANK MANAGER WAS DISMISSED ON A/C OF FORGE PAYMENT OF 8 LAKHS FROM SB A/C OF A DEPOSITOR , NOW ON 2ND MAY-2020 HE IS REINSTATED IN BANK THROUGH HIGH COURT ORDER
( a real case but not posting the case law as the manager has some apprehension so please bear with me )
Depositor claimed that bank manager has wrongly allowed cash withdrawal from his SB A/C through cheque where his signature has been put up by unknown person ,depositor denied his signature , it was unfortunate day for manager who was on the role of passing officer & another was a payee authority say cashier ,
Bank suspended both the staff ,even filed FIR too , manager was arrested but discharged on bail , on criminal trial prosecution suspected that since the day of payment there were only two authorities from bank were present ,the manager & cashier while depositor was not present nor issued any cheque to any other person ,even specimen sign is slightly different so it is suspected a case of forge withdrawal on a/c of manager with the help of cashier ,it does not matter that the very cheque was presented in bank was in order .
To sum up his arguments, learned senior counsel for the accused has submitted that the there is no evidence before the court we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even ,
Agreeing with the argument of counsel for the accused judge exonerated honorably to accused by ruling – Consideration of Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that ‗may be‗ proved, and something that ‗will be proved‗. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof
Bank reinstated the manager but initiated departmental inquiry , I replied on behalf of CSO that he is exonerated honorably by way of criminal trial where evidences are evaluated in the highest manner so no need of any further inquiry
On DE only evidence before the Inquiry officer was opinion of the Handwriting Expert who opined that signature on cheque is slightly a different one
DA found it a sufficient ground in proving a case of forge payment & manager was dismissed in Aug 2017
WE APPROACHED HIGH COURT ---
To sum up his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only evidence before the Inquiry officer was opinion of the Handwriting Expert, which has become legally inadmissible after the judicial verdict as discussed above. mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules in fact It is the case of no evidence
COURT ORDER---
wherein this Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, the Writ Court could interfere with the finding of DA , Handwriting Expert opinion is not a conclusive proof so same is not admissible so I pass hereby the order to set aside
the court order is passed in march-2020 & on second may 2020 manager has joined again the bank
