Judicial review of disciplinary action is limited to procedural adherence and evidence evaluation; the court will not substitute its findings for the disciplinary authority's unless there is a significant procedural violation or lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Purkaystha, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel, as well as Mr. A. Dhanuba, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present intra-court appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Single judge in WP(C) No. 3368/2014, whereby the challenge made by the appellant to the order dated 30.12.2013 dismissing him from service and the appellate order dated 03.04.2014 upholding such dismissal were negated.

3. The appellant, who was serving as a Clerk-cum-Cashier under the respondent bank, was departmentally proceeded for alleged misappropriation of the bank’s money to the tune of Rs. 5,87,675/-.

4. The basic ground of challenge projected by the appellant, firstly was that the appellant was not given any effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; secondly that though three other officers of the bank were charged on the same allegation, no common enquiry was held in derogation of the Regulation 42 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Officers and Employees’ Service Regulations, 2010; thirdly, unlisted witnesses were examined by the employer bank to the surprise of the appellant. Finally, it was also contended that the appellant was not allowed to be represented by a lawyer in the departmental proceeding.

5. The learned Single Judge having due regards to the materials available on record and after considering the rival submissions, concluded that the materials on records including the averments made by the appellant himself at paragraph 10 of the writ petition clearly showed that the appellant had duly cross-examined the witnesses.

6. Regarding the assistance of the legal practitioner, the learned Single Judge opined that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant, inasmuch as, the bank was also not represented by any legal practitioner as well as the relevant rules in this regards, gives a discretionary power to allow representation of a legal practitioner.

7. The learned Single Judge further concluded that Regulation 42, even if a strict interpretation is given, only stipulates that such can be permitted only when two officers in different grades or one officer and one employee are involved in the same incident, such a common enquiry is required; however, in the case at hand, there were more than two employees involved. The learned Single Judge also opined that Regulation 42 only facilitates holding of a common enquiry, and there is no bar in holding a separate enquiry.

8. As regards the unlisted witnesses, it was on record that the appellant duly cross-examined such witnesses without any objection. Therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant.

9. While dismissing the aforenoted writ petition, the learned Single Judge took due note of the admitted facts that the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated were, in fact, deposited in the bank account of the appellant.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, argues before us on the merit of the findings in addition what was argued before the learned single Judge, inasmuch as, it is his contention that the appellant did not sign any form/folio for transferring/crediting amounts in question to his bank account, and that the cheques crediting such amount were not issued under the signature of the appellant.

11. We ha