ORDER
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager at Karahani Branch during the period July, 1994, to July 1996. It was detected that the petitioner committed certain acts of omission and commission during the period of his posting at Karahani Branch. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated for the same. Charge-sheet was furnished to him. The charge was that he misused his official position and acted with mala fide intention, paid large amounts to a family pensioner far in excess of pension amount payable to her and claimed excess amounts from the Government Treasury in the name of other pensioners of the Branch, he paid pension amount to the person knowing that he was not pensioner and was not entitled to any amount of pension. He disbursed arrears of pension twice to certain pensioners with full knowledge of the facts that like amount of pension/commutation of pension was already paid to the pensioners through the vouchers prepared by him. Inspite of furnishing of charge-sheet he did not submit his reply. The inquiry officer fixed September 29, 1997 as the date of preliminary hearing but the petitioner failed to turn up on the medical ground and as such it was adjourned to October 21, 1997. He appeared in the proceeding. Thereafter, several times the proceeding was adjourned but he did not appear in the proceeding and as such ex parte enquiry was taken up. However, on the request of the petitioner the enquiry was adjourned to November 28, 1997, but again he failed to turn up and as such enquiry was conducted ex parte. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner for his show-cause/comments vide letter dated March 6, 1998. He submitted his comments on March 21, 1998. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the comments and enquiry report and the documents placed with the enquiry report came to the conclusion that finding in the enquiry report was correct and accepted the same and accordingly passed order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service, Annexure 9.
2. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority reiterating his submission before the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority by a reasoned order rejected the appeal vide order, Annexure-11. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Bank which was rejected vide order, Annexure 13, as there is no provision of review. The petitioner thus lias filed writ petition for quashing the orders, Annexures-9 and 11 whereby he has been dismissed which was affirmed by the appellate authority.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents that charge-sheet was furnished to the petitioner. He was given full opportunity to defend himself, but he failed to appear before the inquiry officer inspite of repeated adjournments. At the relevant time of posting at Karahani Branch he committed various acts of omission and commission which was enumerated in the charge. Documents were filed before the inquiry officer and (sic) the respondent No. 5 was also examined as witness by the management. He was furnished inquiry report. He filed his show- cause which, was considered by the disciplinary authority and the order of punishment was passed. Appeal against the said order of punishment has also been dismissed. The disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has considered the materials on record in detail. In fact there is no illegality in the proceeding or orders, Annexure-9 and 11.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that respondent No. 5 was Manager at the relevant time at Karahani Branch and as such he himself was liable to be proceeded but the management examined him as witness to substantiate the case against the petitioner.
5. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention that respondent No. 5 himself detected various acts of omission and commission against the petitioner and accordingly proceeding was initiated. Therefore, he was competent witness in this regard and it appears that in fact he has discharged his obligation by detecting the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in my view has no substance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next pointed out that the petitioner was ill and as such he could not co-operate in the proceeding. However, nothing cogent evidence was brought on the record in support of his contention. The disciplinary authority has considered in detail that several times the proceeding was adjourned, but he did not appear in the proceeding without any valid reason. It is well established rule of law that this Court cannot function as appellate authority. Moreover, no other question was raised.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the respondents have failed to establish the charge against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention herein that departmental proceeding is not a criminal trial. The scope of inquiry is entirely different from criminal trial. Doctrine of proof beyond all reasonable doubts is not applicable in the departmental proceeding. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Uday Singh and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2286 : 1997 (5) SCC 129, the Apex Court has held as follows:
“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. The scope of enquiry is entirely different from that of criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. However, in the case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of ‘proof beyond doubt’ also 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 misconduct1. The test is to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent committed misconduct and whether as a reasonable man, in the circumstances would be justified in reaching that conclusion”.
Moreover, it is evident from the enquiry report that the respondents have brought certain documents on the record and also examined witness in support of the charges. Whereas, the petitioner neither examined any witness nor brought on record any document. The enquiry authority recorded findings holding the petitioner guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority on detailed consideration accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and as such I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Thus, on consideration I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed.