In a domestic enquiry, the Inquiry Officer must follow the basic rules of evidence to ensure fairness in the proceedings. The charges of misconduct must be proved by cogent and relevant evidence, and not by inadmissible evidence.

A.P. Singh, J.

1. Petitioner of this writ petition happens to be clerk-cum- cashier of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank which is sponsored by the Bank of Baroda under the provisions of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. At the time, petitioner was posted at Saton branch of the bank, he was served with charge- sheet dated 18.7.85 by respondent No. 2. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that petitioner had dishonestly withdrawn Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 5.000 on 26.3.1985 from the account of Sri Amar Pal, Rs. 8,500 and Rs. 7,500 on 3.5.1985 from the joint account of Sri Jagannath and Jagdish in all from both the accounts Rs. 28,500 on 26.3.1985 and 3.5.1985. Petitioner filed his reply on 26.7.85 and denied the charges. Respondent No. 4 who was appointed to hold enquiry on the charges levelled on the petitioner, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 2. On 20.3.1989. In the Enquiry Report respondent No. 4 held petitioner guilty of the charges which were levelled on him in the charge-sheet. The enquiry was held ex parte against the petitioner as he did not appear in the enquiry proceedings on the ground of illness. Respondent No. 2 thereafter served a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 17.4.1989 calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not punished with an order of dismissal from service on the charges of mis-conduct which were found proved against him as per the report of respondent No. 4. Petitioner sent a letter of request to respondent No. 2 in which he opposed the award of the punishment which was proposed against him and requested the respondent No. 2 to summon the Branch Manager who was working in the Saton Branch of the Bank on 26.3.85 who according to the petitioner, was responsible for the withdrawals in question. Petitioner's request for summoning, the Branch Manager was not accepted and opposite party No. 2 by his order dated 11.4.1990 dismissed the petitioner from the services of the Bank holding him guilty of the charges which were levelled on him with charge-sheet referred to above. Petitioner then filed appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank on 5.5.1990. In the appeal too, petitioner maintained that the withdrawals in question were handiwork of the Branch Manager of the Bank and not his. Petitioner's appeal was however rejected by the Board on 29.6.1990 and its decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.8.1990 sent by the Chairman of the Board.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of the dismissal order dated 11.4.1990 and Board's order dismissing his appeal on 29.6.90 mainly on the following grounds : (a) The charges of making withdrawal of the amounts by the petitioner as mentioned in the charge-sheet, have not been proved ; (b) The petitioner was made scapegoat so as to save the skin of the Branch Manager who was really the person responsible for the fraudulent withdrawals which are attributed to the petitioner in the charge-sheet; (c) The Appellate Authority having failed to apply its mind to the points raised in the appeal while considering petitioner's appeal, has denied opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ; (d) Presence of opposite party No. 2 in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Board m the meeting of Board of Directors which rejected petitioner's appeal against the order passed by Opposite Party No. 2 himself resulted in the breach of the principles of natural Justice; and (e) The punishment awarded to the petitioner is dis-proportionate to the guilt which has been held proved against him.

Opposite parties have opposed the contentions advanced on petitioner's behalf and contended that: (a) Petitioner who has refused to appear In the enquiry proceedings has no face to complain breach of principles of natural justice. (b) Charges have been fully established against the petitioner both from documentary evidence as well as from oral testimony of bank staff and it was fully pro