Jnanranjan Ghosh vs Union Bank Of India & Ors.

“It is settled law that the standard of proof before a quasi-judicial Industrial Tribunal has to be the same as in enquiry proceeding, and appellate jurisdiction is not to be exercised. The test is of preponderance of probability.”

“10.

It is seen that the evidence came to be recorded pursuant to the complaint made by Smt Kundanben, defendant in the suit for eviction. It is true that due to time-lag between the date of the complaint and the date of recording of evidence in 1992 by the Enquiry Officer, there are bound to be some discrepancies in evidence. But the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial. Therefore, the scope of enquiry is entirely different from that of criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. But in the case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of “proof beyond doubt” has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. The test laid down by various judgments of this Court is to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent has committed misconduct and whether a reasonable man, in the circumstances, would be justified in reaching that conclusion. The question, therefore, is whether on the basis of the evidence on record, the charge of misconduct of demanding an illegal gratification for rendering a judgment favourable to a party has been proved………”

“21.1

We will first discuss the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect of disciplinary proceeding. It is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and re-appreciate the evidence led before the enquiry office….”

“I. Who are the authorities who ratified the 36 loans sanctioned by the writ petitioner ?

II. As to whether the authorities, who ratified the 36 loans which allegedly were sanctioned by not following the rules, regulations and guidelines of the bank, were proceeded against or not ?”

“As per the Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2006 of Central Vigilance Commission, Sri B. N. Sathish was issued with Statement of Imputation of Lapses to initiate a minor penalty proceedings. The said Imputation of Lapses was forwarded to Sri Sathish vide letter dated 16.09.2006. As per records Sri B. N. Sathish by a letter dated 20.10.2006 submitted his Reply to the Executive Director and Disciplinary Authority of the erstwhile bank wherein he admitted the fact of being posted at Zonal Office at the relevant point of time. Secondly, he ratified the loan proposals and lastly, there were procedural lapses in connection therewith. The relevant portions of the said Reply are being appended hereunder:

“………. Though Shri Ghosh was in Scale II and later promoted as Senior Manager, he was supposed to exercise his lending powers of a small branch as per the Scheme of Delegation of Lending Powers, as Bhowanipur was a new branch. As a result, most of the loans had to be ratified by Zonal Office. However, I would like to submit here that I had not ratified them in a routine manner without satisfying the genuineness of the proposals. In this regard, I would like to place before you the following facts, which promoted me to ratify the action of the branch….. …… in view of the foregoing, I request your kindselves to take a lenient view of the procedural lapses, if any, observed on my part in the matter and drop further proceedings taking into account my above submissions and also the past record of my 3 decades in this institution, throughout which, the bank’s interest was the uppermost in all my action………….”

“33.

It, thus, stands out that though the Labour Court or the Tribunal while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) are empowered to permit the parties to lead evidence in respect of the legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry held into the misconduct of a workman, such evidence would be taken into consideration by the Labour Court or the Tribunal only if it is found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management on the scale that the standard of proof required therein can be “preponderance of probability” and not a “proof beyond all reasonable doubts” suffers from inherent defects or is violative of principles of natural justice. In other words, the Labour Court or the Tribunal cannot without first examining the material led in the domestic enquiry jump to a conclusion and mechanically permit the parties to lead evidence as if it is an essential procedural part of the enquiry to be held under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.”