In departmental proceedings, valid evidence is essential for establishing guilt, and procedural lapses necessitate remand to ensure fairness.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.,)

By the impugned judgment in appeal, the order of punishment of dismissal issued by the General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, confirmed by the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority of the respondent-bank; pursuant to a departmental proceeding, was set aside. The respondent-bank is aggrieved by the judgment.

2. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-bank submits that the appellant was proceeded against on an allegation of taking bribe. It is pointed out that the fardbeyan of the FIR was marked as MEx3, FIR MEx4 and the arrest memo has been marked as MEx11. This more than demonstrates the complicity of the delinquent employee and validates the allegation. It is argued that insofar as departmental proceedings are concerned, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt; which is the standard of proof in criminal cases. The delinquent employee’s name was not found in the FIR only since it was added later when Rs. 1000/-was recovered from his possession. Reliance is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ranjeet Singh reported in 2022 (2) PLJR 196 (SC) to contend that even if there is defect in enquiry, the employer should be permitted to resume the enquiry from the stage at which the defect occurred. The appellant-bank while seeking to uphold the punishment, in the alternative seeks for resumption of the enquiry proceedings for the purpose of examining witnesses.

3. Mr. Vivek Prasad learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner relies on two Division Bench Judgments of this Court in LPA No. 415 of 2023 (State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Bharat Purbey) dated 06.12.2023 and LPA No. 389 of 2024 (Ram Lagan Ram Vs. the State of Bihar & Anr) dated 06.08.2024, to contend that without any witness there can be no valid proof of the delinquency; even for the purpose of preponderance of probability. Both the decisions as relied upon relies upon Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. On the question of remand, it is pointed out that the disciplinary authority having not conducted the enquiry properly and having not examined any witness, the employer cannot be given a premium for its own default. Reliance is placed on the decisions of co-ordinate benches of this Court in LPA No. 446 of 2024 (State of Bihar Vs. Vikash Kumar) dated 21.08.2024, LPA No. 58 of 2024 (Srikant Singh Vs. State of Bihar) dated 03.09.2024 and LPA No. 770 of 2024 (State of Bihar Vs. Anil Kumar Sinha) dated 20.11.2024. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, to further buttress the above contentions.

4. Admittedly, no witness was examined during the enquiry. The allegation was also that the petitioner was arrested on an accusation of taking bribe due to which the image and interest of the bank had suffered. The enquiry was initiated on the basis of Annexure-P/1 wherein there was no allegation against the delinquent employee. However, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant bank, the delinquent employee was implicated later, on recovery of money from the delinquent employee. True, the allegations are serious especially with respect to the employee of a financial institution who is acting in a fiduciary capacity. Be that as it may, only based on the gravity of allegation, there can be no finding of guilt entered even in a departmental enquiry, without any valid evidence regarding the allegations levelled.

5. We fully concur with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-bank that the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities in a departmental proceeding. But, even for the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to enter satisfaction on the preponderance of probabilities, there should be some evidence led at the enquiry.

6. In this context, we notice the decisi