The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.

ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in denying the relief of reinstatement to the workman, viz., the petitioner herein, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 19.11.2010 passed in ID No.38/2007.

2. The sum and substance of the gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank and its customers by attempting to damage the property, by being a member of the Minority Trade Union and also indulged in misappropriation of money of the customers by falsifying their pass books and fabricating the challan and remitted the said sums at a later date, as if the said sums were remitted only on the said date. The falsification of the accounts of 7 customers were made by the petitioner of which with respect to one customer, the petitioner deposited the amount through his friend, while in other cases, the remittance was made belatedly by the petitioner by using the counterfoils, which were used for depositing the money. Upon the defalcation in the accounts coming to the notice of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension and show cause notice was issued.

3. Upon issuance of show cause notice calling for explanation, the petitioner submitted his explanation and the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the explanation, proceeded with enquiry, which was conducted by the disciplinary authority himself and on the charges levelled against the petitioner being held to be proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 7.2.2000 against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed on 24.12.2003.

4. Being aggrieved over the said dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal, upon receipt of the dispute, took up the same for adjudication in I.D. No.38/2007. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-10. On the side of the 2^nd respondent, one witness was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M-1 to M59 were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, answered the reference against the petitioner by denying the relief of reinstatement, aggrieved by which, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and not based on proper appreciation of materials on record. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even on the ground of preponderance of probabilities, there is no worthwhile evidence, which could form the basis to dismiss the petitioner from service.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Tribunal failed to note the acquittal of the petitioner in C.C. No.1215/2001, which is on the same set of charges and has not properly exercised its power u/s 11-a of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the domestic enquiry was not conducted properly and there was gross violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given time and support to prove his innocence in the domestic enquiry. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the documents were marked through witnesses in the absence of the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted in English and that the documents sought for by the petitioner were not provi