Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing procedural fairness; evidence must meet the preponderance of probabilities standard in administrative contexts, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the order dated 5.5.2014, in and by which the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner was confirmed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.86/2011, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the Bank as Clerk in the year 1996 and was posted initially at Tondiarpet Branch from where he was thereafter transferred to Venkatnarayana Road Branch, Chennai during July, 2002. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 5.9.2003 on charges of misconduct on the allegation that the petitioner, while working at Venkatnarayana Road Branch, had fraudulently withdrawn amounts aggregating to Rs.52,800/- by misusing the single window operating system by unauthorizedly debiting closed loan against term deposit accounts, viz., A/s Nos.62 and 152. The officer, who was granted responsibility to investigate the matter filed report holding that the fraudulent transactions of changing the name of the closed loan against term deposit by changing the limit, drawing power, etc., was done by one Udaya Kumar, a clerk, who had misappropriated about Rs.50 Lakhs on different dates.

3. The petitioner was issued with show cause notice and not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, enquiry was initiated against him in which the enquiry officer, after hearing the petitioner and the Bank had held that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, upon furnishing the same to the petitioner and upon receiving explanation from the petitioner, not being satisfied, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner vide order dated 5.8.2004.

4. Not being satisfied the petitioner raised an industrial dispute contending that the enquiry was not conducted properly and that the enquiry officer did not permit the petitioner to rely on certain documents and the findings of the enquiry officer without furnishing the documents requested by the petitioner amounts to denial of opportunity and, thereby there is violation of principles of natural justice. It was further averred that the entire fraudulent transactions have been committed by one Udaya Kumar and that the petitioner has not committed any fraud, which is even evident from the investigation report and, therefore, the order of dismissal from service is perverse.

5. Before the Tribunal, though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner and the Bank, however, on behalf of the petitioner Exs.W-1 to W-19 were marked and on behalf of the Management, Exs.M-1 to M-6 were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the documentary evidence held that the petitioner had taken advantage of the fraud perpetrated by one Udaya Kumar and had adopted the very same method and withdrew the amount, which is evident from the report and the evidence of the investigating officer before the enquiry and, accordingly, endorsed the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not approached the case with free mind and on the basis of a biased view, had approved the punishment imposed on the petitioner, which is wholly erroneous. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the petitioner was dismissed from service, however, the materials and the enquiry proceedings did not prove that the petitioner had committed the act of misconduct.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the documents filed do not support the c