Absence of handwriting expert's testimony does not vitiate disciplinary findings supported by the delinquent's admission.

The appellant, a Clerk/Shroff at Indian Overseas Bank, was issued a charge memo on 24.07.2011 for stealthily removing a cheque book, making fictitious entries in the register, and committing forgery.

Following a domestic enquiry where the charges were proven, the appellant was dismissed from service, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority and subsequently the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court in I.D.No.83 of 2013.

The appellant challenged the Labour Court's award via WP.No.17798 of 2015, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 23.06.2015.

The present Writ Appeal was filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Single Judge’s order.

1. Whether the non-examination of a handwriting expert as a witness vitiates the disciplinary proceedings when the expert’s report is relied upon as evidence.

2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court were perverse or based merely on unproved documents.

The Court applied the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically Section 73 regarding the comparison of handwriting.

The Court applied Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which renders reports of certain Government scientific experts (including Forensic Science Directors) admissible in evidence without formal proof.

Regarding the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, the Court distinguished Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, noting that while mere marking of documents is insufficient, documents supported by admission or corroborative evidence are valid.

The court also applied the doctrine of limited judicial review over Labour Court awards, intervening only in cases of clear perversity.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the enquiry was flawed due to the non-examination of the handwriting expert.

It reasoned that the appellant had already admitted to the handwriting in the cheque issuance register in his explanation (Ex.W3), rendering the expert opinion from the Forensic Department merely corroborative evidence.

The Court found the appellant's defense—that he was helping an unidentified illiterate customer—to be a "palpable dichotomy" given the limited number of accounts in the rural branch and the fact that the forgery was discovered the same day.

Since the expert report is admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and Section 73 of the Evidence Act, its use in disciplinary proceedings alongside the appellant's admission was legally sound.

Consequently, the Court found no perversity in the Labour Court’s findings.

The court answered that the principles of natural justice were followed and no grounds for interference existed.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the dismissal was upheld.