CHAIRMAN PANDYAN GRAMA BANK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Proof by preponderance of probabilities " - What does this phrase convey in the context of a Disciplinary Proceeding? Precisely, this question has come up for consideration in this writ petition.

(2.) The 2nd respondent is a trade union and its members are employees working in the petitioner bank. From 04.04.1994 onwards one Mr. V. Naganathan [hereinafter referred to as "the employee"] was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the petitioner bank. He is also a member of the 2nd respondent trade union. The petitioner bank on 12.12.1995 issued a charge memorandum to the employee alleging that he had demanded and accepted 10% of the loan amount as illegal gratification along with Field Officer - Sri N. Suruli Bommaiyan and the then Branch Manager - Sri O. Arumugam while disposing five small loans and seventeen charcoal loans to different borrowers during the period between December, 1993 and March, 1994. The employee denied the said charge by submitting a detailed explanation dated 23.01.1996. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the petitioner Bank ordered for an enquiry.

(3.) Before the enquiry officer one Mr. K. Balachandran, who held preliminary enquiry and recorded the statements of the loanees was examined as M.W.1 on the side of the management. The said statements of the loanees were also marked. But, the persons who gave such statements before Mr. K. Balachandran were not examined before the enquiry officer. However, relying on the said statements of the loanees and the evidence of Mr. K. Balachandran, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. A copy of the enquiry officer's report was furnished to the employee along with a show cause notice dated 16.10.1997. The employee submitted a further explanation dated 01.11.1997. Rejecting the said explanation, the petitioner Bank by order dated 19.05.1998 imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Challenging the said punishment, the employee preferred an appeal and the same was also rejected by the Board of Directors by proceedings dated 20.04.1999. It is against the said punishment, the 2nd respondent trade union raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 67 of 2000. The order of reference of the Central Government is to the following effect: