The court emphasized the importance of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the principles of justice and highlighted that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is not the same as in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

1. By medium of this writ appeal, judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed in WP (C) No.346 of 2009, is assailed.

2. Appellant admittedly Clerk/Shroff in respondent-Bank was assigned the Tiny Deposit Section from 01.09.2004 to 28.02.2005. During the said period, appellant is allegedly to have worked as sub-Agent of respondent No.5 which is in absence of consent of the bank was impermissible. He is alleged to have committed certain irregularities as a result whereof, has misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,88,150/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty eight thousand and one hundred fifty) as he had not deposited the same with the Tiny Deposit Agent or with the Branch.

3. Appellant was served with a notice by the respondent (Bank) dated 01.06.2005 wherein, as many as 13 irregularities committed by him were made mention of, was asked to tender an explanation which he vide his letter dated 16.07.2005, has responded wherein he has denied to have committed any irregularities. Not satisfied with the response, a show cause notice dated 26.04.2006 was served upon him (appellant) as to why disciplinary action should not be taken. His response to the said show cause notice dated 06.06.2006 gave rise to a regular inquiry; Articles of Charge vide letter dated 25.11.2006 were served upon him.

4. Shri Tapan Kumar Chakrabarty, Manager Circle Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who after threadbare enquiry which appellant had actively participated, prepared a detailed report dated 31.10.2007 with the following conclusion:-

"Thus in respect of Charge Sheet No.COG/VIG/S-11/299/06- 07 dated 25.11.2006 issued to Shri Hrishikesh Bhattacharjee, as per my opinion derived on the basis of documents/evidences/witnesses produced during the enquiry, Charge No.1, 2, 4 and 6 are proved in full, Charge No.5 is partially proved and Charge No.3 is not proved."

5. Copy of the Inquiry Officers report was sent to the appellant on 11.12.2007 along with disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority regarding finding of Inquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.3. Sufficient time was given to the appellant for offering his comments which within time he did not. Subsequently, vide letter dated 27.01.2008, he had submitted his comments. Disciplinary Authority after threadbare discussion, after proper examination of the inquiry record and enquiry report imposed on the appellant punishment of "compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment" in terms of Regulation 6(c) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 between the Banks and Workmen Association. The period from 11.07.2005 till 31.03.2008 has been treated as one on suspension only.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, appellant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Deputy General Manager) which too vide order dated 22.05.2009 had been dismissed being without merit.

7. Aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings and orders passed thereon, appellant filed WP (C) No.346 of 2009 but dismissed vide judgment dated 03.03.2014 being devoid of merit. Aggrieved whereof, instant writ appeal has been filed.

8. Show cause notice, articles of charge, enquiry report and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority have been threadbare referred to and discussed in the judgment impugned, therefore, are not required to be reproduced in this judgment.

9. First contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no positive evidence so as to prove that the appellant had acted as sub-Agent under the TDS Agent (respondent No.5). Even the Inquiry Officer himself had observed that there is no direct evidence to prove that the appellant had worked as sub-Agent, even the signature of the appellant in the Tiny Deposit collection register and Tiny Deposit record was not found. This contention on scrutin