CW 12616/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12616/09 Raghubirsingh Versus Syndicate Bank through Asst. Manager DATE OF ORDER : 21/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. S.L. Songara, for petitioner *** Instant petition is directed against the award dt.3rd August, 2004 whereby claim of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner-workman, as alleged in the petition, was appointed as Attender in 1989 who was served with two charge sheets dt.3rd March, 1999 & 18th March, 1999. In the first charge sheet dt.3rd March, 1999 served upon the petitioner, it was alleged that he committed gross misconduct of coming to the Branch frequently under the influence of liquor and on two occasions i.e. 8th April, 1998 & 17th September, 1998 he came to the Branch in drunken state and misbehaved with the then Branch Manager in presence of other staff members and the customers. At the same time, in CW 12616/09 [2] another charge sheet dt.18th March, 1999 allegation against him was that he remained absent without intimation continuously for a period of 30 days and has also availed leave on loss of pay for 596 days upto 31st December, 1998. After holding inquiry, both the charges levelled against the petitioner in reference to charge sheets referred to supra, were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority while agreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dt.30th October, 1999, copy of which has been placed on record as Ann.2. Petitioner raised a dispute against the order inflicting penalty and finally a reference was made by the appropriate government for adjudication. Learned Tribunal after examining the record upheld the order of penalty inflicted upon the petitioner under award impugned dt.3rd August, 2004. Counsel for petitioner submits that as regards charge which was found proved against the CW 12616/09 [3] petitioner in respect of the fact that he was in drunken state of affairs and misbehaved with the Branch Manager relied upon medical report [Ex.M6], could not be said to be sufficient unless Doctor could be examined and apart from it, in absence of his blood & urine being tested by approved Laboratory, the very finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in holding charges proved, is arbitrary and without being supported by material on record. Counsel further submits that as regards another charge sheet served upon the petitioner for 30 days leave was a minor misconduct and even if it is being taken at its face value, final punishment inflicted upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement, in no manner can be said to be in proportion to the charge found proved and it has not been properly appreciated by Tribunal while upholding punishment. From the perusal of award, it revealed that medical report [Ex.M6] was placed on record, which does corroborate from the fact that petitioner consumed alcohol and was under CW 12616/09 [4] intoxication on the relevant dates i.e. 8th April, 1998 & 17th September, 1998. So far as further charge levelled against the petitioner with respect to the fact that he misbehaved with the Branch Manager and customers is concerned, sufficient evidence came on record during the course of inquiry and there was no justification to disbelieve the statements of independent witnesses which were recorded in the course of inquiry. As regards charge of 30 days absence levelled against petitioner that his unauthorized absence was found proved and this fact will not remain unnoticed that in his 10 yrs. service he remained absent on numerous occasions for 596 days upto 31st December, 1998 and that could certainly be taken note of while inflicting penalty upon the delinquent. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not absent for 596 days upto 31st December, 1998 & apart from it, the charge sheet dt.3rd March, 1999 served upon the petitioner he was CW 12616/09 [5] finally held to be guilty and taking note of nature of charges of both the two charge sheets of which allegation found proved against him, he was punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement. Submission made by counsel for petitioner that Doctor was not examined and his blood & urine was not tested from approved Laboratory, in absence whereof, upholding charge proved against him could not be said to be justified, in opinion of this court, has no substance for the reason that in the departmental inquiry, charge is to be found proved on probability of evidence. However, in criminal case certainly charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and what has been urged by counsel for petitioner may be a justification in criminal case, if at all, being instituted against him, but in a departmental inquiry as already observed, probability of evidence available on record is sufficient in holding delinquent guilty of charges levelled against him. CW 12616/09 [6] As regards second submission made by Counsel for petitioner that even if charge of 30 days absence found proved, the penalty is disproportionate that also has no substance for the reason that if delinquent remained absent on various occasions i.e. 596 days upto 31st December, 1998 and later also there was charge of absence and so also the fact that in charge sheet dt.3rd March, 1999 allegation was made in respect of intoxication and of misbehaving with the Branch Manager. The punishment inflicted upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement, looking to the nature of charges found proved against him, in no manner can be said to be disproportionate. This Court after going through the award impugned does not find manifest error being committed which may call for interference. Consequently, this court find no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA12616CW09 21-10.doc