Disciplinary inquiries against bank employees can rely on preponderance of probabilities for evidence; natural justice was not violated despite procedural challenges.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Enquiry Proceedings and Report against the petitioner;

(b) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by Respondent no.3 by declaring the same as illegal and void being violative of Articles 14 and article 21 of the Constitution;

(c) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the respondent no.2 by declaring it as illegal and void due to non application of mind and non- consideration of several important grounds and thus in violation of Article 14 and 21 read with Article 301 of the Constitution;.."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager in Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter "RBI") and was posted at Currency Verification and Processing System (hereinafter "CVPS") of Issue Department. On 31st May 2005, the Petitioner was entrusted with processing and shredding of currencies worth Rs. 4,50,000/-. During a surprise check of the cancelled notes brought for shredding in the shredding room, it was noticed that there was a shortage of 50 pieces of Rs.100/- denomination in three packets.

3. Consequently, two alternate charges being that of wilfully not performing his duties towards the bank and that of surreptitiously abstracting/pilfering the said currency notes to derive pecuniary benefit and having displayed gross negligence were framed against the petitioner vide chargesheet dated 11th June 2005. After conducting the disciplinary inquiry, the charges against the Petitioner were found to be proved and accordingly vide order dated 30th October 2006, the petitioner was dismissed from the bank's service and Rs.5000/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. The appeal against the said order dated 30th October 2006 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 6th July 2007. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the instant writ petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

Submissions of Petitioner

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence to support the findings on fact arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the material evidence has been completely disregarded without assigning any reasons. It is submitted that vide chargesheet dated 11th June 2005, the petitioner was charged with act of gross misconduct of pilferage and, in alternative, he was charged for negligence in his duties. The chargesheet issued to the petitioner was vague and charges framed against the petitioner were ambiguous and unspecific. The chargesheet neither disclosed material relied upon by the Bank to frame the charges nor it disclosed the list of witnesses to be produced by the Bank to prove the charges. It is submitted that the first and foremost charge of pilfering is with respect to the notes whic