K. VINOD CHANDRAN, NANI TAGIA
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Now Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank), through its Chairman – Appellant
Versus
Dudheshwar Ram, son of Late Babu Ram – Respondent
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 th
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran
Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Ors.
Pawan Kumar Agarwala Vs. General Manager-II and Appointing Authority, State Bank of India
In departmental proceedings, valid evidence is essential for establishing guilt, and procedural lapses necessitate remand to ensure fairness.
A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.
Departmental misconduct charges require proof via witness examination on preponderance of probability; unproved complaint/arrest documents insufficient, warranting quashing of dismissal, with crimina....
Disciplinary proceedings must be substantiated with oral evidence; reliance solely on documents, without testimonial support, renders findings invalid.
(1) Dismissal--Standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, same charges and evidence may lead to different results in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.