Departmental proceedings are governed by the preponderance of probabilities; thus, acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate a dismissal order. Judicial review under Article 226 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless the findings are ex facie arbitrary or based on no evidence.

ORDER:

Present writ petition challenges the order of dismissal dated 23.01.2001 passed by 3rd respondent as confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 11.04.2001 and consequently to set aside the same and to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. After filing of writ petition, the writ petitioner died, therefore, his wife and two children got impleaded to prosecute the case. In view of the subsequent development, the prayer to the extent of reinstatement would not survive.

(a) Petitioner was discharging duties as Cashier at Chandragiri Branch of respondent bank at relevant point of time. On the allegations that he had committed certain irregularities in discharge of duties including that of misappropriation of cash, he was issued charge sheet dated 20.03.1999, calling upon him to submit explanation to the said charges as set out in detail therein. It is to be noted that even before issuance of said charge sheet petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.06.1998. After submission of the explanation, eventually enquiry came to be conducted and enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 26.08.2000 holding that all the charges were held to be proved. Thereafter, after issuing show-cause notice and calling for explanation, the 3rd respondent has passed orders dated 23.01.2001 removing petitioner from service.

(b) Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal before 2nd respondent, who eventually dismissed the same by order dated 11.04.2001.

(c) Assailing the above orders, present writ petition is filed. Respondents have filed detailed counter opposing the writ petition.

Heard Ms.Shaik Neha Hassan, representing Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioners on record and Mr.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned standing counsel for the respondent bank.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that both the orders of disciplinary authority and as well as appellate authority suffer from severe infirmity inasmuch as the findings of fact recorded therein clearly suffer from glaring perversity. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings are clearly vitiated for following reasons:

a) that the charges so framed by disciplinary authority are clearly vague;

b) the Enquiry Officer did not supply the charge sheet and the relevant documents immediately, enabling petitioner to respond to the same appropriately, thus, the procedure so adopted clearly denied petitioner right to participate in the enquiry effectively, which therefore amounted violation of principles of natural justice;

c) the findings recorded with respect to the first charge clearly suffer from perversity inasmuch as the evidence on record was clearly insufficient to hold that shortage of cash of ₹10,000/- was sheerly on account of the act of misappropriation of the petitioner;

d) the charge with regard to removal of gold bangles from the bank which otherwise were secured for extending loans and stated to have been found in possession of petitioner, clearly stand unproved and the evidence of the bank was definitely insufficient in holding that the charge against the petitioner and that too when same set of charge in criminal case vide C.C.No.668/98 ended in honourable acquittal; and

e) lastly, the charge relating to the petitioner leaving the bank without closure of cash account and being in intoxicated condition at home was also based on no evidence, therefore, the findings recorded to hold the said charge proved suffered from manifest error and perversity.

In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:

1. Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ¹2024 SCC OnLine SC 146

2. Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar and others ²2025 SCC OnLine SC 890

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order of disciplin