High Court Upholds Dismissal of Bank Clerk for Forgery and Confirms Labour Court Award

A bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan heard an appeal against the Single Judge's order in WP No.17798 of 2015 challenging the confirmation of a disciplinary dismissal by the Labour Court. The appeal arose from a bank clerk's challenge to his dismissal for alleged forgery, fraudulent entries in a cheque-book issuance register and related misconduct.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the Labour Court's award confirming dismissal. The Court held that the enquiry findings did not suffer from perversity and that the discipline proceedings, which rested on the employee's own admission and expert corroboration, required no interference. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Unless the order of the Labour Court is perverse, the question of interference with the award does not arise. In the case in hand, while harmoniously reading the order of the Labour Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the order, as the Labour Court has considered both the factual aspects as well as the legal aspects and only upon the reason as stated supra, the Labour Court ultimately found that the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer, and that the punishment of dismissal is in order. Such finding, in our opinion does not require any interference. Further, the petitioner also could not make out any case, so as to deviate from the decision of the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any merits in the present Writ Appeal." The Court further noted the evidentiary value of expert opinion in disciplinary proceedings and treated the forensic report as corroborative of admitted facts, stating that "the petitioner admitted the handwriting in the cheque issuance register in Ex.W3" and that "the expert opinion was used as a corroboration."

Background

The appellant was a clerk in a rural branch of Indian Overseas Bank. He was charged on 24.07.2011 with stealthily removing a cheque book, making fictitious entries in the Cheque Book Register and committing forgery. He submitted explanations, but the Bank conducted a domestic enquiry; the Enquiry Officer found him guilty and the disciplinary authority imposed dismissal. The Appellate Authority upheld the punishment. The appellant raised an industrial dispute (I.D. No.83 of 2013); the Labour Court confirmed the dismissal. The Single Judge dismissed WP No.17798 of 2015, and the present Letters Patent Appeal followed.

The appellant argued that charges were fictitious, that the Enquiry Officer relied on documents without examining their authors, and that the handwriting expert was not examined—invoking the Supreme Court decision in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) which held that "mere marking of documents are not sufficient, unless it is proved through witnesses" and that enquiry reports should not rest on conjectures. He maintained that he often assisted illiterate customers in filling cheques and could not identify any such customer when challenged.

The Bank responded that findings rested not solely on documents but on the appellant's admissions and corroborative evidence, including a handwriting expert report; it relied on the admissibility of forensic opinion under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court accepted that the expert report was admissible and that the appellant's explanation—his inability to identify the alleged customer despite admitting handwriting—created an implausible defence. The Court distinguished the Roop Singh Negi proposition by noting that here the expert opinion was corroborative and the admission by the employee strengthened the case against him.

The Court found no perversity in the Labour Court's approach to facts and law and concluded that interference was not warranted. The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs. No interim directions or further liberty were recorded.

Case Details:
Case No.: WA No. 1436 of 2015
NeutralCitation: 2026:MHC:1042
Case Title: S. Thangavelu v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vignesh Raj for Mr. M. Muthappan
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. Vigneshwaran for Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy (for R2 & R3); R1 represented by the Labour Court records

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 109