JUDGMENT INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. 1. On the consent of the learned counsels representing the respective parties, both the writ applications noted hereinabove are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment. O.J.C. No. 14184 of 1999 came to be filed by the petitioner-Management of State Bank of India seeking to challenge an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 18 of 1996 (Central). In the said dispute, the following issue was referred to by the Union of India under Section 10(2A)(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 vide their order dated 26.03.1996 for adjudication. “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing the services of Shri U.C. Behera, Clerk of Rayagada Branch is lawful and justified and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” O.J.C. No. 12616 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner U.C. Behera seeking modification of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 22.09.1999 in Industrial Dispute Case No. 18 of 1996 (Central). 2. In the impugned award, the tribunal famed two issues – Insofar as issue No. I is concerned, after discussing the rival: (i) Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing the services of Sri U.C. Behera, Clerk of Rayagada Branch is lawful and justified? (ii) To what relief, the workman is entitled? Claims as well as the evidence produced in course of the proceeding, the Tribunal in para 12 of the judgment concluded the said issue in favour of the opposite party-workman in the following manner: “In the result, I hold that the enquiry suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity to the second party workman in his defence and the report of enquiry is wholly unreasoned and unsustainable in law being devoid of a dispassionate appreciation of evidence. Non-appreciation of show cause by the disciplinary authority recording the order of dismissal rendered such order questionable. In the facts and circumstances, the order of dismissal is not supportable in law.” Insofar as Issue No. II is concerned, the Tribunal came to conclude as follows: “In the facts and circumstances, while directing reinstatement, I hold that the second party is entitled to half the back wages. He is also entitled to refund of Rs. 1500/-representing the shortage recovered from him.” 3. He is also entitled to refund of Rs. 1500/-representing the shortage recovered from him.” 3. In the light of the findings arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal as recorded hereinabove, the management of the State Bank of India have sought to challenge the award on the ground that the opposite party-workman had approached this Court earlier in O.J.C. No. 295 of 1984 and this Court in the said judgment had arrived at the following findings: “This being, however, a pure question of fact and nothing having been brought to our notice relating to perversity of the finding, we are not inclined to examine this submission of the learned counsel in the present proceeding.” Placing reliance on the above, it is submitted that the opposite party-workman produced no materials to show about any error of law and/or non-adherence of natural justice and it is alleged that the Tribunal had gone beyond the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ application. 4. The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner-management was that, although a criminal case had been initiated against the opposite party-workman, which had ended by way of a final report, the Criminal court not having recorded any evidence, law is well settled that the Departmental Proceeding can proceed with its rules and instructions. It is submitted that a strict rule of evidence is not applicable to departmental enquiry and since the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty on the basis of evidence and ample opportunity having been afforded to the workman in the course of departmental enquiry, no reference ought to have been made to the criminal case which had ended in submission of a final report. The further contention has been advanced by the petitioner-management that as per provisions of the Sastry Award and as per para-521(10)(c), when there is a previous grave misconduct committed by the self same workman, the said workman in the particular issue being close to the occurrence of the event, suspicion can be drawn and when the workman being found guilty of grave misconduct necessary punishment can be given. This assertion is made basing on the fact that the customer had lodged a complaint for non-withdrawal of the amount and the same cannot be denied from the evidence on record. 5. This assertion is made basing on the fact that the customer had lodged a complaint for non-withdrawal of the amount and the same cannot be denied from the evidence on record. 5. It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioner-management that the learned Tribunal had not taken the pleadings of the Bank into account and delivered the award in favour of the workman basing on the evidence and the Enquiry Report. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted when there is violation of statutory regulations or violation of the principles of nature justice. It is further submitted that law is well settled that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, than the workman cannot canvass before the court or the tribunal. Lastly it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-management that the opposite party-workman had been found guilty based on clinching evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer by the Handwriting Expert, who in his report has shown that the conduct of grave misconduct has been committed by the workman. Thus, no leniency in punishment should be shown as the banking business needs absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty by each and every employee. The fraud committed by the workman should certainly be dealt with heavily and thus, the punishments awarded by the authorities of the bank are correct. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the workman, on the other hand, submitted that in course of the suspension/disciplinary enquiry the workman had approached this Court on several occasions. The reference made by the petitioner-management to the observation of this Court in O.J.C. No. 295 of 1984, is wholly inaccurate and inappropriate. The opposite party-workman had filed the aforesaid writ application challenging his suspension since 03.08.1978 pending enquiry. In para 5 of the said judgment this Court took note of the fact that the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 28.07.1983 and concluded as follows: “But then, the observations have to be confined to the period of suspension. The opposite party-workman had filed the aforesaid writ application challenging his suspension since 03.08.1978 pending enquiry. In para 5 of the said judgment this Court took note of the fact that the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 28.07.1983 and concluded as follows: “But then, the observations have to be confined to the period of suspension. In the present case, the order of suspension having been revoked and the petitioner having been directed to report for duty as stated in Annexure 13, it has to be held that the suspension came into an end and the petitioner got reinstated in service by virtue of the decision to revoke the order of suspension. This decision, therefore, cannot stand in the way of the petitioner in getting his full pay and allowances for the aforesaid period.” 7. It is further submitted that the quotation made by the petitioner-management insofar as O.J.C. No. 14184 of 1999 is concerned, is incomplete. The portion quoted by the petitioner-management is followed with the following words: “Though it is also faintly submitted that the enquiry proceeding was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice, nothing specific is brought to our notice in this regard.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the opposite party-workman submitted that since O.J.C. No. 295 of 1984 pertain to challenge to the order of suspension and not to the order of dismissal, no reliance on the same beyond the extent covered by the said judgment can be placed. He further submitted that the workman though reinstated on 26.07.1983 was issued with the order of dismissal on 29.07.1983 and the workman submitted a representation to the Chief Regional Manager to revoke the order of dismissal on 16.08.1983 and with a further representation on 17.08.1983 alleging that Enquiry Report had not been supplied to him but, no response had been received against such representation. Therefore, after disposal of O.J.C. No. 295 of 1984 on 18.05.1990, the opposite party-workman received his salary till his date of termination i.e. on 29.07.1983 and, thereafter, filed a fresh representation on 13.07.1990. Therefore, after disposal of O.J.C. No. 295 of 1984 on 18.05.1990, the opposite party-workman received his salary till his date of termination i.e. on 29.07.1983 and, thereafter, filed a fresh representation on 13.07.1990. Not getting any response thereof, the petitioner filed a Civil Review No. 7 of 1991 and such review application came to be disposed of by the order dated 26.07.1991 with a direction that the delinquent will file a fresh representation before the appellate authority and the appellate authority was directed to pass a reasoned order without being biased by the dismissal of O.J.C. No. 295 of 1984. Accordingly, the workman field a fresh appeal on 04.10.1991 calling upon the appellate authority to provide copy of the documents sent to Handwriting Expert, copy of the preliminary report, inquiry report and copies of various other documents as well was permission to engage a lawyer. Ultimately, the appeal came to be rejected purportedly without recording any reasons vide order dated 02.04.1992 compelling the petitioner to challenge the same before this Court in O.J.C. No. 9251 of 1992. In the aforesaid writ application, this Court vide order dated 08.04.1993 quashed the appellate order dated 02.04.1992 and directed the appellate authority to re-dispose the representation of the workman by a speaking order. Before the appellate authority, the workman prayed for a personal hearing and to be supplied with the documents such as Enquiry Report etc. and ultimately the Enquiry Report was supplied to him on 01.09.1993. The appeal was heard on 01.10.1993 and came to be dismissed purportedly by placing reliance solely on the evidence of one A.R. Samajdar, a private Handwriting Expert, who had been examined by the management in course of the disciplinary proceeding. 9. On dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the workman again filed O.J.C. No. 2615 of 1994 which came to be withdrawn with liberty to agitate the matter before the appropriate labour authority. Thereafter the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of power under Section 10(2a)(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The learned counsel for the workman thereafter made the following submissions on factual situation of the dispute. (i) One Sri P.C. Padhi, holder of S.B. Account of Rayagada Branch of State Bank of India claim to have handed over Rs. The learned counsel for the workman thereafter made the following submissions on factual situation of the dispute. (i) One Sri P.C. Padhi, holder of S.B. Account of Rayagada Branch of State Bank of India claim to have handed over Rs. 250/- with deposit slip and his pass book No. 2121 to one Sri Banchhanidhi Mishra, Cashier of the branch to deposit the same in his account. It is alleged that the said Sri Mishra did not deposit the same on 07.06.1977 and only deposit the same on 08.06.1977. (ii) It is further alleged by the account holder that on 09.06.1977, a sum of Rs. 1500/- was withdrawn from his Savings Bank Account and on that date, one B. Murali Mohan was working as the Savings Bank Counter Clerk and one T.S. Achary was the Paying Cashier. (iii) On 15.06.1977, the account holder P.C. Padhi made a complaint with the bank that the said withdrawal had not been made by him and basing on his complaint, the Branch Manager, V.S.S. Rao made a preliminary enquiry, copy of which has never been served on the workman. (iv) It further appears that the Branch Manager lodged an F.I.R. on 05.07.1977 before the Rayagada Police Station without naming any accused. The police seized all the connected documents in original and took up the investigation and called upon five staff members to the Police Station and recorded their statements. The I.O. obtained the opinion of the Handwriting Expert on 12.12.1977 basing on photo copies wherein, the Handwriting Expert opined that in the withdrawal slip dated 09.06.1977, the account holder’s signature was not genuine and that on the reverse of the withdrawal slip, the signature of one P.K. Ratha was indicated and the opinion expressed was that, the person who signed as P.C. Padhi (Account Holder) and the person who signed as P.K. Rath (withdrawer) was by the same person in his own handwriting though in different names. (v) The said Handwriting Expert by further report dated 18.02.1978 stated that the signature of P.C. Padhi (Account Holder) on the reverse are in the handwriting of U.C. Behera (opposite party-workman) but he further pointed that a thorough investigation was required to establish the fact. On account of such report of the Handwriting Expert, the opposite party-workman was suspended on 03.08.1978. On account of such report of the Handwriting Expert, the opposite party-workman was suspended on 03.08.1978. (vi) While the criminal proceeding was pending investigation, in the meanwhile charge sheet for the departmental proceeding was initiated on 07.12.1978 and on 28.01.1980 the enquiry commenced. Sri Murali Mohan, the Savings Bank Counter Clerk was examined and he stated that he had paid the money to the bearer of the withdrawal slip i.e. Sri P.K. Rath but he denied having paid the said amount to Sri U.C. Behera (opposite party-workman). He has further stated that the savings bank account has cheque facility and ordinary withdrawal forms are not allowed to be used and he would not have allowed the payment of money if the pass book had not been produced and since the pass book with the withdrawal slip was produced by the said P.K. Rath, there were two signatures on the withdrawal slip resembling P.K. Rath the bearer of the instrument, who signed in the presence of the said Savings Bank Counter clerk. He further stated that no token was given to any staff member since in the case of withdrawal slip; the pass books are insisted upon and pass books must be presented along with the withdrawal slip. The person who presented the withdrawal form after taking payment had asked for the pass book and the said counter Clerk, Sri Murali Mohan returned the same to him. (vii) It is further submitted that Sri T.S. Achary, the Cashier who made payment, was examined on 30.01.1980. The Cashier stated that he paid the money to one Sri P.K. Rath on presentation of token. The Cashier claims to have asked the name of the bearer of the token since he generally insists the exact person to come and take payment when both the depositor and the person taking payment are well acquainted. Then in some specific case they allowed other person other than the bearer and he insist that he has not paid to any third party. Thereafter on 14.08.1980 Sri A.R. Samajdar claiming to be a Handwriting Expert submitted a report dated 12.12.1977, copy of which was never supplied to the delinquent-workman and only at the time of cross-examination, the documents relied on i.e. the S.S. Cards was not supplied to the delinquent. Thereafter on 14.08.1980 Sri A.R. Samajdar claiming to be a Handwriting Expert submitted a report dated 12.12.1977, copy of which was never supplied to the delinquent-workman and only at the time of cross-examination, the documents relied on i.e. the S.S. Cards was not supplied to the delinquent. It is asserted that the writing and the signature with the withdrawal slip compared with the leave application of the delinquent-workman and some salient points of agreement in writing habits were found. The said witness in his evidence has stated that similarities of form are likely to occur in some cases and bound to occur between the writings of two or more people when the writing is in the same language and script. Although the workman requested the inquiry officer to supply the documents produced by the Handwriting Expert under cover of his letter dated 27.8.1988 the same was never supplied. 10. It is most important to note that the Branch Manager was duly examined and produced copy of the S.S. Card, but copies thereof was never supplied to the delinquent-workman and since no document was supplied to the delinquent, he could not cross-examine the said witness and it is submitted that the photo copies of the specimen signature of Sri Padhi and photo copies of the withdrawal form were produced but, the Enquiry Officer refused to give the said documents to the delinquent-workman although by an earlier order dated 09.01.1980, the Enquiry Officer directed the Presiding Officer to supply copy of the statements of the Branch Manager in the preliminary enquiry. Therefore, it is submitted that the delinquent was seriously prejudiced for non-supply of the said documents and the Enquiry Officer also refused to give the same vide order dated 11.11.1980. 11. One Sri B.N. Mishra, Casher was examined on 02.12.1980 and he admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 250/- from the account holder P.C. Padhi on 07.06.1977 and deposited the same on 08.06.1977 but he was on leave on 09.06.1977 i.e. the date on which the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 1500/- was made from the account holder’s account. 12. It is now most relevant to take note of the fact that P.C. Padhi (Account Holder) was examined as a defence witness on 03.12.1980 and he stated that he never withdrew money through anyone else. 1500/- was made from the account holder’s account. 12. It is now most relevant to take note of the fact that P.C. Padhi (Account Holder) was examined as a defence witness on 03.12.1980 and he stated that he never withdrew money through anyone else. He further stated that he had paid the money to Sri B.N. Mishra on 06.06.1977. Thereafter the enquiry was concluded but no Enquiry Report was supplied to the delinquent. Thereafter the investigating officer in G.R. Case No. 256 of 1977 submitted final report before the court of the learned S.D.J.M. Rayagada in which Sri U.C. Beheradelinquent workman had been originally shown as an accused and the said final report was finally accepted and the proceeding was closed due to lack of evidence. 13. While no Enquiry Report was ever supplied to the delinquent, a second show cause notice was called for vide letter dated 02.05.1983 which the delinquent received on 23.05.1983 and ultimately on 07.07.1983 show cause was duly submitted. On 26.07.1983 the order of suspension was revoked and the delinquent-workman joined in the Rayagada Branch, State Bank of India on 29.07.1983 and on the same day, order of dismissal was issued to the delinquent-workman although the show cause reply had been filed by the delinquent and the same was never taken into consideration while imposing punishment of dismissal. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party-workman submitted that insofar as the evidence of A.R. Samajdar, a private Handwriting Expert is concerned, the same was contradictory to the opinion expressed by the police Handwriting Expert whose opinion formed the basis of submission of final report. Learned counsel for the opposite party-workman submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal considered each and every averment made by the management as well as the workman and dealt with the evidence of the Handwriting Expert in detail as follows: “The Hand Writing Expert is examined as a witness by the management who supported his version borne out in the reports, marked Exts.2 & 3. The Hand Writing Expert has claimed that he was trained as a Hand Writing Expert in the Bengal C.I.D. between the years 1940 and 1942 on completion of training he was declared as a Hand Writing Expert. He worked as a Hand Writing Expert in the C.I.D. till the end of 1947 whereafter he left the branch to join the general police. He worked as a Hand Writing Expert in the C.I.D. till the end of 1947 whereafter he left the branch to join the general police. He was eventually promoted to the I.P.S. On retirement he resumed practice as a Hand Writing Expert and was enrolled in the L.Rs panel. He has been examining cases since then. He admitted in cross-examination that he does not have any certificate that he was an Expert in Hand Writings. Despite the absence of a certificate the version of the Hand Writing Expert merits credence to the extent it is worth. As has been indicated he noticed similarities of form in respect of four letters appearing in the admitted writings of the second party with the writings appearing in the questioned documents, namely, the withdrawal slip. In cross-examination he admitted that similarities of form are likely to occur and in some cases bound to occur between the writings of two or more people when the writing is in the same hand or script. He further explained that similarities of form may be accidental or simulated but similarities of features promoted and guided by the writing habit are the personal habits of the writer and are sure to identify him and distinguish him from others. He further deposed that agreement in movement, style etc. does not indicate identity of the writer. Explaining the concluding remarks given in Ext.3 that further investigation into the matter was indicated, he has stated that it was the departmental enquiry which was meant by his observation regarding further investigation. Whatever be the explanation tendered during enquiry by the Hand Writing Expert the two reports Exts.2 & 3 do not and cannot conclusively establish the authorship of the second party in the impugned documents. The disciplinary enquiry is ex-facie shorn of any corroborative feature implicating the second party as the perpetrator of the fraud and this has not any way driven home the charges of guilt of the delinquent.” 15. The disciplinary enquiry is ex-facie shorn of any corroborative feature implicating the second party as the perpetrator of the fraud and this has not any way driven home the charges of guilt of the delinquent.” 15. The Industrial Tribunal took into consideration the evidence of B. Murali Mohan, the savings bank counter Clerk as well as the evidence of T.S. Achary the Cashier as well as the evidence of Sri P.C. Padhy account holder-complainant and has succinctly taken into consideration those evidence as follows: “The version of B. Murali Mohan and T.S. Achary completely excludes the possibility of the second party handling the withdrawal slip and drawing the proceeds thereunder Ext.F, the report of the enquiry bears clear recitals that the complicity of the second party in the alleged fraud could not be established by any eye account of the incident. Mere past acquittance of the second party with the drawer, namely, Prafulla Chandra Padhi does not lead to an un-irresistible conclusion that it is the second party alone and none else who was responsible for the fraud.” 16. Having come to the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal came to the following conclusion in para-8 which is quoted hereunder. “In such circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion despite the fact that the adjudication relates to a disciplinary proceeding that the management, the accuser has failed to discharge the onus of proof required in the case of major misconduct. The acceptance of the final report in the criminal case as borne out in Ext.31 without protest is a piece of circumstance suggestive of absence of a prima facie case against the second party-workman and viewed in that angle the charge must be held unfounded so far as the workman is concerned.” In view of the aforesaid findings, with which this Court most respectfully agrees, the second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner also fails. Insofar as the third and fourth contention of the petitioner-management are concerned, the said are merely recorded to be rejected essentially because while there can be no two issues on the point that, if there exists some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the order passed by the disciplinary authority ought to be accepted. 17. Insofar as the third and fourth contention of the petitioner-management are concerned, the said are merely recorded to be rejected essentially because while there can be no two issues on the point that, if there exists some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the order passed by the disciplinary authority ought to be accepted. 17. In the case at hand, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal clearly establishes the contrary that there exists no legally tenable or acceptable evidence produced in course of the enquiry to justify the conclusion of any finding against the delinquent-workman and conversely in the absence of any legal evidence, the Tribunal, in this Courts considered view, has correctly answered the reference in favour of the workman and against the management. Insofar as the last contention of the petitioner-management is concerned, this is not a case where any leniency is being shown to a person who lacks devotion, diligence or integrity but, on the contrary, this is a case, where the Tribunal has concluded that, it is a case of no evidence and consequently while there can be no doubt that every employee including a bank employee is required to show devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty in every possible manner. The present case is one, where the Tribunal has assessed and gone into in detail all the evidence produced in course of the departmental proceeding both, by the management as well as the delinquent-workman and came to conclude and answer the reference in favour of the workman. 18. Insofar as the challenge made by the workman to the award vis-à-vis limiting the back-wages to 50% is concerned, on perusal of the award, it appears that the Tribunal has considered the inordinate delay on the part of the workman to raise the dispute and approach the Tribunal and such conduct was found to be adequate justification for limiting back-wages to 50%. This Court is in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Tribunal in this regard. 19. This Court is in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Tribunal in this regard. 19. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, this Court finds no error whatsoever in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and consequently the writ applications i.e. O.J.C. No. 14184 of 1999 filed by the management seeking to challenge the award and O.J.C. No. 12616 of 2001 filed by the workman praying for full back-wages, are dismissed and the order of the Tribunal is affirmed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The Registry is directed to intimate this order to the Tribunal forthwith.