The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. Petitioner while working with the respondent bank as an officer in the Middle Management of Grade Scale-I was placed under suspension on 17th January, 2022 setting into motion a departmental disciplinary proceedings for having misbehaved and having conducted a behaviour unbecoming of an officer of the bank of his scale before the higher officer, namely, Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Agra.

3. Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 18th May, 2022 with as many as 8 article of charges to which he did not submit any detailed reply and instead, wrote a mail letter that his previous reply should be taken to be meeting all the points raised in the charge-sheet. The previous reply that has been referred to is of 6th May, 2022, obviously prior to the date of charge-sheet. He participated in the oral inquiry held by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the notice dated 8th June, 2022 and cross-examined the departmental witnesses, viewed the CCTV footage of the incident of heated exchange of views between him and higher officers on the fateful day. Inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer ultimately indicting him of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. Petitioner was required to submit reply to the inquiry report to which petitioner submitted reply.

4. The Disciplinary authority having found itself in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and the report in which charges were brought home inflicted upon him major penalty of dismissal from service.

5. Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority which also came to be rejected and hence this petition.

6. Assailing the two orders Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings returned in the report of the inquiry officer qua the alleged incident of heated exchange of views and misbehaviour/misconduct with higher officers in the rank in the circle office on 15th January, 2022, was perverse as entire charge was absolutely false for no such incident to have taken place, except a fact that petitioner had visited the circle office, Agra to meet Mr. Animesh and having not found any positive reply to his query as to why he was transferred to a place other that to which he had requested for. He also visited Sri Vikash Kumar, Senior Manager, HRM and then finally entered the room of Sri A Ratnakar Rao, the Assistant General Manager.

7. He has argued that CCTV footage though had visuals/videos but had no audio record and, therefore, it could not have been deciphered as to what exactly transpired while he was in verbal conversation with the higher officers. He submits that merely on the basis of his gesture appearing in the video that he has been held guilty of alleged misconduct, otherwise in his explanation that he had offered as point-wise reply, he had explained his position but that has not been considered in their correct prospective by the inquiry officer. He submits that he had cross-examined the officers and nothing came out in the cross-examination which may be said to be sufficient enough to be substantial one to indict the petitioner of the charges. He submits that disciplinary authority did not consider reply of the petitioner which was furnished in response to the notice alongwith the inquiry report and proceeded to inflict major penalty of dismissal from service. He has also sought to urge that the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the charge.

8. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the bank that petitioner having not replied to the charge-sheet as such and having not taken any pleading as to what cross-examination had taken place and in what manner he could suggest that no heated exchange took place between him and the officer concerned, the findin