JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been preferred against the order in W.P.No.29747 of 2013 dated 16.12.2013 whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order of dismissal passed by the Bank dated 09.06.2011 was not interfered with by the learned single Judge.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner/appellant that he worked as a Special Assistant at the Vellore Main Branch of the respondent Bank and was alleged to have unauthorisedly and wrongfully debited the amount from various accounts to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs. On account of the said misconduct he was placed under suspension on 07.04.2010 in terms of provisions of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. It is further case of the appellant that after a detailed enquiry, three charges were framed against him, which have been held to be proved and was dismissed from service on 09.06.2011. Hence the appellant preferred an appeal on 21.07.2011. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the appeal was not at all disposed of and that he has sent a reminder on 27.02.2017. Apart from the Disciplinary Proceedings a criminal case was also initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner for various offences under IPC, which was taken up as Calendar Case 1 of 2013. It is stated by the Appellant that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on 30.05.2019 and after acquittal by the criminal Court, the appellant/writ petitioner made a representation on 01.08.2019 to settle the terminal benefits, including all the arrears due to him. Since the request was not acceded to the writ petitioner has approached this Court challenging the dismissal order dated 09.06.2011.

3. The learned single Judge, after taking note of the contention of the writ petitioner and the pleadings of the respondents, wherein it has been contended by the Bank that the writ petition has been filed beyond a period of eight years on the ground of laches dismissed the writ petition.

4. The contention put forth by the respondent / Bank is that when the dismissal order is in force, the appellant is not entitled to get any relief including the retirement benefits. The Bank further contended that the employee participated in the Domestic Enquiry and due opportunity was given. Since the charge levelled against him is grave in nature, viz., misappropriation of the public money, the Bank has no other option, except to dismiss him from service. The appeal was also rejected on 23.07.2012 which was received by him on 02.08.2012. In the counter filed by the Bank before the learned Single Judge, the genuineness of the letters dated 05.07.2019 and 01.08.2019 mentioned supra was questioned and even in the absence of standard of proof in the Domestic Enquiry, what is required is to prove the charges based on preponderance of probabilities and need not be proved beyond the reasonable doubt. The learned single Judge has accepted the contention of the Bank that the employee has committed a great misconduct and that the standard of proof in Domestic Enquiry and criminal proceedings are completely different. It was held that in the Domestic Enquiry, charges have been proved and the punishment cannot be interfered with. Insofar as the proportionate of punishment is concerned, as the Bank employee who was holding a responsible position of public trust had involved in unauthorised and wrongful debit from the customers account of the bank, which cannot be taken slightly by imposing lesser penalty than dismissal. Hence the learned single Judge did not interfere with the punishment of dismissal, passed against the writ petitioner.

5. It is seen that the Bank has established the charges in the Domestic Enquiry and that the appellant/writ petitioner has knocked at the doors of the Court after eight years and even assuming for the sake of argument that the Appellate order has not been communicated to him, nothing prevented the employee from approaching this Court immediately or raise an Industrial Dispute under the I.D.Act 1947, wherein the powers o