D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The background : On the basis of a charge sheet dated 21st of May, 1994 an enquiry was held in which the employee/respondent was found to be guilty of the charges. A writ petition was moved before this Court, which was allowed. The appeal there out was dismissed. The matter went to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court had set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matter to be decided by this Court with the following direction: "The inevitable result is that the judgment of the Division Bench confirming that of the learned single Judge has to be quashed so far as it relates to the question of violation of principles of natural justice. But that is not the end of the matter. There was no consideration of the merits of the case as noted above. It would be in the fitness of things to direct examination of the documents by the expert in terms of Learned Single Judge's order. The employee shall file originals of the documents on which he relies upon, of which copies were placed before the High Court. The appellant-Bank shall file-originals of the documents on which reliance was placed, if not already done. If the Government expert is of the view that documents produced by the employee are forged fabricated or not authentic the order of dismissal shall, stand. If, however, the report of the expert is that the documents produced by the employee are genuine, the order of dismissal has to be vacated. In case the originals, as directed above, are not filed by the employer or the Bank, then the High Court shall pass necessary orders, upholding the order of dismissal or setting aside the order of dismissal, as the case may be. No other point shall be considered by the High Court. The matter shall be heard by the division Bench by restoration of the writ appeal. "
(2.) In the circumstances, it appears that the only scope of this appeal before us is to decide the question on the basis of the report of examination of the particular documents by the expert. The Court has no alternative but to pass appropriate order on the basis of such report as to the genuineness of the said documents. The parties were directed to produce the original documents for being examined by the experts. It was also provided that in case the originals were not filed by the employee or the Bank then the High Court should pass necessary orders upholding the order of dismissal or setting aside the order of dismissal, as the case may be. No other point can be considered by the High Court.
(3.) Admittedly, the documents were not produced by any of the parties. The Bank took a stand that these documents were produced before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, having examined the same found the document in Item No. 1 dated 13th of September 1989 as forged and fabricated and did not accept the said document along with the document in Item No. 2 which was purported to be copy of the document in Item No. 1. So far as the document in Item No. 3 is concerned, the Appellate Authority had recorded that this document was not found in the record and that no such letter was addressed to the employee and that the document No. 4 was never received by the Bank. In the circumstances, the bank points out that those documents, which were produced, are on record of the appellate authority and were tendered to the employee who took a stand and those documents were not the documents he had produced. 13. On the other hand, the employee's case is that the Bank had replaced the documents produced by him and that the documents now being relied upon are not the documents he had filed. He also contended that since he had parted with the originals in the proceedings before the appellate authority, therefore, he is not in custody of the originals and the Bank is in custody thereof. But the Bank did not produce the original documents for being examined by the experts. Employee's contention :;