Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition of a former bank employee who had challenged his termination from Punjab National Bank (PNB) on allegations of impersonation during the recruitment exam. The Court found no merit in his claims and upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s order that had validated his dismissal.

Background

The petitioner was recruited in 2013 for the clerical cadre after participating in the bank’s selection process. He joined duty on 13 March 2013. However, soon after, a complaint was filed by his cousin alleging irregularities in the recruitment process.

The bank investigated and alleged that on 11 December 2011, another person had appeared in the written examination on behalf of the petitioner. The signatures and thumb impressions on the exam records did not match those in the petitioner’s bank records.

Departmental Enquiry and Punishment

A charge memo was issued in February 2014. A full domestic enquiry was conducted with an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The enquiry concluded that impersonation had occurred. On 22 May 2015, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service without notice.

The petitioner appealed internally, but the Appellate Authority upheld the dismissal in August 2015. He then raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna. The Tribunal, by award dated 25 June 2019, held that the dismissal was justified and lawful.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner claimed there was insufficient evidence and that handwriting experts had given contradictory opinions.
• He argued that he suffered from meningitis or mild paralytic attack around the time of the exam, causing tremors in his signature, which explained the discrepancies.
• He also claimed that the Tribunal wrongly allowed the management to produce documents and witnesses after earlier finding the enquiry defective.

High Court’s Findings

• Multiple management witnesses and handwriting experts testified that the petitioner’s exam signatures and thumb impressions did not tally with his admitted records.
• The petitioner’s plea of illness was disbelieved since it was not raised during the enquiry but introduced only later at the Tribunal stage.
• The Court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in Tribunal proceedings without objection and only challenged the procedure after losing, which was barred by principles of waiver and estoppel.
• The Industrial Tribunal’s award was based on evidence and did not suffer from illegality or perversity.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding both the Tribunal’s decision and the bank’s action of dismissal. The petitioner’s claim for reinstatement or relief was rejected.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

For Employees

This case highlights that fraud in recruitment, especially impersonation in competitive exams, will be dealt with strictly. Employees cannot later rely on medical excuses not raised during departmental proceedings.

For Employers

The judgment affirms employers’ right to conduct domestic enquiries and terminate employees when misconduct like impersonation is proven. It also validates the Tribunal’s role in reappraising evidence.

For Industrial Disputes

The ruling reinforces that if an employee participates fully in proceedings without objection, they cannot later challenge procedural decisions. Courts will not interfere with Tribunal awards unless findings are perverse or illegal.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the dismissal for alleged impersonation in recruitment exam was justified?
  • Decision: Yes. The evidence supported the charge, and dismissal was upheld.
• Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in allowing management to produce further evidence?
  • Decision: No. The petitioner waived his right to object by participating fully without timely challenge.
• Whether the plea of medical illness explained signature discrepancies?
  • Decision: No. This defense was rejected as an afterthought.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Petitioner cited Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh, 2018 (2) PLJR 177 (SC), to argue against allowing management additional evidence.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• The Court discussed Kurukshetra University (supra) but distinguished it based on the facts and the petitioner’s conduct.

Case Title

Gunjan Kumar v. Management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 24521 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 77

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar
• For the respondent-bank: Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1 with Ms. Kumari Rashmi

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjQ1MjEjMjAxOSMxI04=-OBCgmaq7EXk=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.