Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.

JUDGMENT :

MAUNA M. BHATT, J.

1. Dena Bank through his regional manager has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

“5(a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the award dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in reference (I.T.C) No.26/2008 [Old reference (I.T.C.) No.8/1996 – Reference (C.G.I.T.A.) No.37/2004] at Annexure “A”.

(b) During the pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, stay the operation, implementation and effect of the award dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (I.T.C.) No.26/2008 (Old Reference (I.T.C.) No.8/1996 – Reference (C.G.I.T.A.) No.37/2004] at Annexure “A”.

(c) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case may be granted.”

2. It is case of the petitioner that award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 29.06.2010 in Reference (I.T.C.) No.26 of 2008 is erroneous since the Tribunal while passing the award has committed not only an error of law but also an error of jurisdiction by applying wrong standard of proof for evaluating the finding of Inquiry Officer and also by recording its own finding after re-appreciating the evidence on record of departmental enquiry, particularly, when the legality and validity of enquiry proceedings was admitted by the respondent – workman before the Industrial Tribunal.

3. Brief facts referred in the petition are as under:

3.1. At the relevant time, the respondent was working as Peon in Vijapur Branch (Mehsana Region) of the petitioner – Bank. Gujarat Finance – Vijapur, a customer of the petitioner – Bank was having an account with Vijapur Branch, who applied for new cheque book on 02.11.1987. The new cheque book containing cheque Nos. E 411501 to 411600 was issued on 04.11.1987. Before the cheque book was delivered to the customer, one cheque was stolen from it. The said cheque was stolen by respondent – workman who thereafter managed to open the account in the name of Shri Mahesbhai Ramabhai Patel with Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank, Vijapur Branch. It was case of the petitioner – Bank that the said cheque was deposited having amount of Rs.40,000/- in favour of Shri Maheshbhai Patel. The complaint of stolen cheque was filed by customer before police. FIR was lodged against respondent-workman. On account of above, the respondent was charge-sheeted for fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- from account of customer by forging the signature. Respondent – workman was arrested. It was case of the petitioner – Bank that during investigation before the police authority, the respondent admitted the offence, and therefore, the report of inquiry officer holding the charges as proved against the workman was proper. Pursuant thereto the respondent – workman by order dated 26.08.1991 was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was challenged by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.C) No.26/2008 and the Industrial Tribunal by award dated 29.06.2010 held that dismissal of the workman was illegal. The Industrial Tribunal further directed reinstatement with continuity of service and also awarded 25% backwages. Against the award dated 29.06.2010, present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner – Bank and Mr. Jigar Dave, learned advocate for respondent – workman.

5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner – Bank submitted that the award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous on the following grounds:

(i) The respondent – workman was dismissed from service on account of gross misconduct causing damage to the property of the petitioner. The misconduct of respondent had caused damage to the reputation of Bank. For misconduct, inquiry was initiated and after conducting inquiry, the inquiry officer gave his report holding the charges as proved. Against order