- (1.) The petitioner was working with the Bank of Maharashtra as a clerk. He was suspended with effect from 3rd October, 1991. More than seven years thereafter he was-charge sheeted; to be precise the charge-sheet was issued on 16th November, 1998. Even after seven years the Bank was not sure about the charges against the petitioner so that a corrigendum had to be issued on 29th December, 1998. The Enquiry was, thereafter, held and the charges against the petitioner have been held to have been proved. It appears from the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer was much too concerned about the delay during the period between 12th April, 2000 and 1st December, 2000 during which period the petitioner was ill and could not participate in the enquiry. He, however, has not spent even a word as to why was the petitioner suspended in the year 1991 and was not issued the charge-sheet then and there and what necessitated the delay of seven-years for the purpose of issuing a charge-sheet.
(2.) It would be appropriate to notice the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly a clerk. Admittedly, he has posted a cheque for Rs. 7,000/-. Admittedly, he has prepared an interest voucher for Rs. 16,963/-. Admittedly, he has posted two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each. This is what he did. Three charges levelled against him are related to these three things which he did. As regards cheque for Rs. 7,000/-, the charge was that although the concerned account holder had a credit balance of Rs. 139.22, the petitioner added the figure of 7' and/or pre-fixed the figure of 7', so as to make the credit balance appear to be Rs. 7,139.22. The charge is that by resorting to this practice he has allowed the account holder to encash the cheque for Rs. 7,000/-. The second charge is that in an account interest payable was Rs. 9,963/- but the interest voucher was deliberately prepared by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 16,963/-. The last charge against the petitioner with regard to two cheques for Rs. 5,000/- each was that he has by pre-fixing the figure '1' at various places including the credit balance allowed those two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each to be encashed. Whereas, there was no appropriate credit balance and the cheques could not have been cleared in the normal course. For the purpose of proving the aforesaid charges the Bank has relied on the sole testimony of Shri Purushottam Chatterjee, who is supposed to be a handwriting expert. In course of this cross examination the said expert has deposed as follows :- "PC : I agree that there is no registration number such like Advocates and doctors. There are few people in West Bengal practicing in, this profession. There is no registration number, but a panel is maintaining by the State Government, Judicial department, and we the experts took it for granted that the persons who are enrolled in the panel maintained by judicial secretary-cum-legal remembrances (LR) are recognized experts in WB in this provision. Considering the above fact, I have used the term (Govt. Registered). Lastly I may mention that in the year 1970 I personally went to LR Office and surprisingly I found that there is no record in the office file as a document examiner of my name in the said panel. I handed over a xerox copy of my original letter to the person concerned to maintain the file properly. DC : What are your educational qualifications. PC : I appeared BA examination in 1959 as external candidate but could not succeed. DC : In the High Court, City Civil" and Sessions Court Calcutta, they maintain a panel of experts. Your name does not appear in the panel of documents examiner in High Court. PC : My name is not included in the High Court panel. DC : For examination of documents as handwriting expert, in Govt. organization certain trainings are imparted and examinations are held ; and if a candidate qualifies and passed the examination then and then alone he is allowed to become an examiner of documents. Do you agree. PC : So far as I know, there is only departmental training and there is no examination system in case of State and Central Govt. examiners. DC : So far as your case is concerned, you have not undergone either any training or passed any examination conducted by the Central or the State Govt. handwriting department which is called questioned documents examination bureau. PC : There is no scope for general public to take such training. Only Govt. employees can take training from certain centers maintained by the Govt. of India/State Govt. There is no recognized public institution and as such i got no training from any institution in India. DC : Did you work in any Govt. service as a handwriting expert. PC : I was never in Govt. service as a handwriting expert."
(3.) It would thus appear that Shri Chatterjee, on whose evidence or so to say the sole evidence on the basis of which, the Enquiry Officer recorded his finding, in his deposition in cross examination admitted that he is not even a graduate. He did not have any specialised training. He is supposed to have been in the panel of the legal remembrances but he admits that in the year 1970 when he visited the office of the Legal Remembrancer he did not find his name there. On the basis of the evidence of this witness the entire finding was recorded. Section 45 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 provides that the opinion of persons specially skilled is a relevant fact. Here is a witness, who has never undergone any training. Nor is there anything to show as to how does he stake his claim to be a skilled person in the matter of examining questioned documents.;