1 2026:CGHC:898-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 934 of 2025 Sachchidanand Dubey S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Dubey Aged About 67 Years (Then Senior Assistant), R/o Koilari, P.O. Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (Now Surajpur) Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Bank of India Through The Chief General Manager, Local Head Office Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Dy. General Manager (O And C) Network 1, S.B.I. Administrative Office, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant General Manager Administration, S.B.I. Administrative Office, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Enquiry Officer/ Chief Manager (Enquiry And Investigation) S.B.I. Administrative Office, 3rd Floor, CCPC, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.08 10:52:58 +0530 2 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant writ appeal and quash and set-aside the order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure WA/I) passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.S No. 3400 of 2011 (Sachchidanand Dubey versus State Bank of India & Ors.) & allow the writ petition by quashing & setting aside the dismissal order dated 14.08.2010 & consequential appellate order dated 05.05.2011 with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3400/2011 (Sachchidanand Dubey versus State Bank of India & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge are that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as Cashier-cum- Clerk in respondent No.1/State Bank of India on 10.11.1983 and was subsequently promoted/designated as Senior Assistant and posted at Bhaiyathan Branch. During his posting, certain allegations of serious irregularities and gross misconduct were levelled against him in relation to sanction and disbursement of agricultural loans, opening of accounts, unauthorized passing of cash/transfer payments, and improper maintenance of loan 3 records and control cards. On the basis of the said allegations, the appellant/writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 26.12.2006. A departmental enquiry was thereafter initiated and a charge-sheet dated 27.05.2008 was issued, alleging abuse of official position, procedural violations, financial improprieties, opening of fictitious loan accounts, unauthorized disbursement of loan amounts, manipulation of records, and causing substantial financial loss to the Bank. 5. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted his reply to the charge- sheet on 12.07.2008. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 07.07.2010. Based on the enquiry report, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner, to which he replied on 02.08.2010. After considering the enquiry report and the reply, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service on 14.08.2010. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected on 05.05.2011. Challenging the order of dismissal and the order passed in appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition bearing WPS No.3400/2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.10.2025. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in WPS No.3400/2011, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioners. 4 8. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that— • the learned Single Judge has erred in law and failed to appreciate that in the departmental enquiry the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Award on the Industrial Disputes between Certain Banking Companies and Their Workmen (popularly known as the Sastry Award), which is pari materia to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action and Procedure, 2002 applicable to bank employees, was not followed by the disciplinary authority. As a consequence thereof, full and proper opportunity of hearing was denied to the appellant/writ petitioner to effectively defend himself; • the learned Single Judge further failed to consider that the documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority for arriving at the finding of guilt were never supplied to the appellant/writ petitioner despite repeated requests, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board (AIR 2006 SC 207), State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (AIR 2010 SC 3131), Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2006 SC 1748) and 5 Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari ((2017) 2 SCC 308). It is contended that, despite these settled principles and the law governing reinstatement with consequential benefits as propounded in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya ((2013) 10 SCC 324), State of Chhattisgarh v. Iqbal Khan (2002 (4) MPHT 58) and H.K. Lagar v. C.G. Gramin Bank (CGLJ 2022 (2) 12), the learned Single Judge relied upon judgments which are clearly misplaced in the facts of the present case, particularly in view of T. Takano v. SEBI ((2022) 8 SCC 162) and Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India ((2023) 20 SCC 486); • the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the charges framed against the appellant/writ petitioner were vague, omnibus and baseless, and that the same were never proved by cogent evidence, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank ((2011) 14 SCC 379); • the learned Single Judge did not consider that the appellant/writ petitioner was sought to be held liable for acts which were neither performed by him nor fell within the scope of his duties or authority. It was urged that the appellant was working under the direct control and supervision of the Branch Manager and that preparation of control cards was not part of his assigned duties as per the distribution of work; 6 • the finding of guilt recorded in the departmental enquiry is based merely on conjectures and surmises, inasmuch as the documents relied upon were neither proved in the enquiry nor supplied to the appellant/writ petitioner, rendering the entire enquiry vitiated in law; • the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the alleged acts attributed to the appellant/writ petitioner and shocks the conscience, warranting interference by this Court; • the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that under the bi-partite settlement dated 10.04.2002, particularly Clause 14 thereof, a departmental appeal is required to be decided within a period of two months, whereas in the present case the appeal was decided after an unexplained delay of more than seven months; • the material prosecution witnesses were never examined or made available for cross-examination by the appellant/writ petitioner during the enquiry; further, no written complaint by any debtor was produced, nor was any allegation of forged or fake signatures duly proved. It was also urged that during the relevant period, most of the transactions were carried out by other cashiers and the appellant has been wrongly implicated; • the learned Single Judge failed to consider Annexure P/10, which evidences a police investigation conducted at the 7 instance of the Tehsildar, wherein the appellant/writ petitioner was absolved of any criminal liability and was, in fact, cited only as a witness; and • finally, it is submitted that the charges were not proved in accordance with law and the appellant/writ petitioner could not have been dismissed merely on assumptions and presumptions, without proper scrutiny of the evidence and surrounding facts and circumstances. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel and submits that— • the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after affording full and effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant/writ petitioner. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry, the Presenting Officer placed reliance upon various sets of documents from time to time, all of which were duly supplied to the Charged Employee. • on 17.03.2009, the Presenting Officer placed before the Enquiry Officer a set of documents which were supplied to the Charged Employee. Thereafter, additional sets of documents were produced on 08.05.2009, 18.05.2009, 19.05.2009, 17.12.2009 and 05.01.2010, and each time copies thereof were furnished to the Charged Employee. 8 • on 16.01.2010, the Charged Employee sought supply of certain documents, which request was partly overruled by the Enquiry Officer. Significantly, no objection was raised against the said decision. A further request for additional documents was, however, allowed by the Enquiry Officer. Pursuant thereto, on 09.02.2010, the Presenting Officer produced the documents as demanded. • on 10.02.2010, certain documents, which were either unrelated to the charges or impractical to be produced, were denied by the Enquiry Officer while allowing the demand for other documents. The Charged Employee accepted the said decision and accordingly restricted his demand. Subsequently, on 16.04.2010 and 21.04.2010, the Presenting Officer produced the documents sought by the Charged Employee, and the Charged Employee expressly agreed to raise his defence on the basis of the documents so supplied, without any protest or demur. • on 01.05.2010, prior to the closure of the enquiry proceedings, the Charged Employee recorded his satisfaction with the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and specifically affirmed that he had been granted full and adequate opportunity to defend himself. • therefore, the plea of violation of principles of natural justice or non-supply of documents, as now sought to be urged, is 9 wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on their behalf. We have also meticulously perused the impugned order(s), the pleadings on record, the enquiry report, the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities, and all other material documents placed before us. 11. We have also perused the original record of the departmental enquiry, which was produced before the Court by Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and the same has been taken into consideration while examining the merits of the case. 12. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while applying the judicial precedents in The State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh (dead) through Lr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 901, Union of India and others v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794 as well as B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “7. After perusal of record it appears that the petitioner was posted as a Senior Assistant at Bhaiyathan Branch and during that period some financial irregularities have been found against him and pursuant to that on 26.12.2006 he was suspended. The charges against the petitioner 10 are that he has committed irregularities and gross misconduct regarding sanctioning of loan, account opening, cash payment and also agriculture loan account were not properly drawn and maintained as well as control cards were not prepared and also requisite details were not given. It is also alleged that the cash/transfer was done by the petitioner is without authority of law. A charge-sheet has been issued on 27.05.2008 in which 11 charges have been leveled against the petitioner and all are serious in nature. Record also shows that a enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer on 12.07.2010 and except charge No.7 all are found to be proved and on 20.07.2010 the petitioner has submitted his reply on the said enquiry report. A show cause notice for dismissal from service was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to submit this reply. The authority was not satisfied from the reply submitted by the petitioner on 02.08.2010 a dismissal from service of the petitioner has been passed which is also affirmed by the appellate authority on 05.05.2011 by the appeal filed by the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is that he was under the direct control of Branch Manager and work was assigned by him and at that period he was working as cashier and committed serious irregularities. The charge- sheet issued to him also shows that during that period he has done financial irregularities. The next argument of the petitioner is that he has not been given proper opportunity to defend himself is baseless because all the documents relates to 11 enquiry has been supplied to him and show cause has been given by the respondents. Pursuant to that the petitioner has submitted his reply and after passing an order he has also preferred an appeal. It appears that the relevant documents has been supplied to the petitioner and also he was informed time to time regarding proceedings therefore, he has submitted his reply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab (Supra) held that mere non- supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside. The relevant para is quoted herein-below:- “ Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the reasoning given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is unsustainable. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority solely on the ground that some documents were not supplied to the delinquent. However, it is required to be noted that as such there is no finding that non- supply of some documents has resulted into any prejudice caused to the delinquent-employee. Mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the 12 employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside.” 8. It also appears that he has misused his position and work contrary to Rules, Regulations and guidelines of the Bank and also failed to check and maintain the requisite documents. The prosecution proved its case against the petitioner by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. It also appears from the record that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate Authority is correct and not liable to be interfered by this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others (Supra) held in Para 22 as under:- 22. In another Judgment reported as B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., it was held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court is to examine as to whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. This Court held as under:- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual 13 receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the 14 conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 9. The submission of the petitioner is that some documents relates to enquiry has not been supplied to him but he has not mentioned that what document has not been supplied and what prejudice has been caused, therefore, on this ground he cannot claim any relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India 15 (Supra) held as under:- “33. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 6th June, 1984 noticed that the respondent had "failed to submit his list of documents and witnesses which he wanted to produce for the purpose of his defence within the date stipulated the Inquiring Authority and he also did not raise any objection during the course of enquiry." The Review Committee in its order dated 12th November, 1987 upon consideration of the entire matter observed as follows:- "The Petitioner has contended that certain documents required by him were not made available to him by the prosecution at the inquiry. The records reveal, in this respect, that he was asked to submit his lists of documents and witnesses by the 31st March, 1982 and that he had failed to do so. The lists were in fact received by the Presenting Officer on the 28th May 1982, far beyond the stipulated time, and as such no action was taken thereon. However, the Committee is at a loss to understand as to why the Petitioner did not press at the Inquiry for the production of the requisite documents if they were so vital as to cause serious prejudice to his defence as alleged. The Petitioner's accusation that the Inquiry Authority refused to summon all the defence witnesses is also not acceptable for the same reason that the list was not received within the stipulated period. The committee, however, observes 16 that the Inquiring Authority had, in fact, permitted the Petitioner to produce his witnesses for deposition." 34. These observations indicate even though the grievance was made belatedly, the same was duly considered by the highest authority of the Bank. Even at that stage, the respondent had failed to point out as to what prejudice had been caused to him during the course of the enquiry. In such circumstances, the Division Bench was wholly unjustified in setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 10. Apart from Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 in Paras 12 & 13 held as under:- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the 17 power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that 18 evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 11. The petitioner being a Bank employee was required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He was required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank, to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank employee. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. The punishment inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be said to be shocking to the conscience of the Court and most of the allegations made against the petitioner have been found proved. 12. With regard to circular dated 18.08.2005 by which duties of the petitioner has been submitted is no relevant in this case because he has conducted financial irregularities and regarding memorandum of settlement dated 29.07.2002 after examination of misconduct and financial irregularities committed by the petitioner appropriate order has been passed, therefore, it 19 cannot be said that the circular has come to in his rescue. 13. The next submission of the petitioner is that an FIR has been lodged by the then Tahsildar Surajpur in which the petitioner was absolved from criminal liabilities and he was made a witness in the said case, therefore, the departmental enquiry on the basis of same charges is not sustainable. The FIR was not lodged by the Bank it is lodged by the Then Tahsildar, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are binding upon the said FIR and the employer/Bank has conducted independent departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry would be decided on the preponderance of probability, whereas in the criminal case the prosecution has to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Noida Entrepreneurs Associates Vs. Noida and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1161 in Para 17 held as under:- “17.The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.” 14. In present case a detailed enquiry was 20 conducted by the respondent and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and supplying the papers of departmental enquiry he has submitted his reply and thereafter he was found guilty and looking to the nature of misconduct and financial irregularities an order of dismissal from service has been passed. Therefore, he cannot get any relief from this argument. Taking into consideration the above- discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” 13. Upon a comprehensive reappraisal of the entire factual matrix, the pleadings on record, the original records of the departmental enquiry, and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and that the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 does not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 14. The record unmistakably demonstrates that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, settlement norms, and the principles of natural justice. The appellant/writ petitioner was afforded repeated and adequate opportunities to defend himself, including supply of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority, consideration 21 of his objections, and grant of opportunity to present his defence. Significantly, the appellant himself recorded his satisfaction with the manner of conduct of the enquiry prior to its closure, which clearly belies the plea of denial of reasonable opportunity. 15. It is equally well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. Neither this Court nor the learned Single Judge can sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer or re-appreciate the evidence as if exercising appellate jurisdiction. So long as the findings are supported by some evidence and the enquiry is conducted fairly and by a competent authority, interference is not warranted. In the present case, the findings of guilt recorded against the appellant are based on oral as well as documentary evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 16. The contention regarding non-supply of documents or violation of principles of natural justice has rightly been negatived, as the appellant has failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice caused to him. Mere allegations of non-supply, without pointing out how such alleged omission has affected the defence, are insufficient to vitiate a disciplinary enquiry, particularly in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the field. 17. The argument that the appellant was acting under the directions or supervision of superior officers, including the Branch Manager, 22 does not absolve him of responsibility, especially when the charges pertain to misuse of position, unauthorized financial transactions, and gross procedural violations. A bank employee is expected to adhere to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and diligence, and the nature of misconduct proved in the present case justifies the penalty imposed. 18. We also find no substance in the plea regarding proportionality of punishment. Considering the gravity of the charges, the scale of financial irregularities, and the resultant loss and erosion of public confidence in banking operations, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate or arbitrary so as to call for interference by this Court. 19. The reliance placed on the outcome of a criminal investigation or the appellant being absolved of criminal liability is also misplaced. It is settled law that departmental proceedings operate in a distinct sphere and are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, unlike criminal trials which require proof beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and applied the settled principles of law. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 21. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 23 22. After due perusal of the original record of the departmental enquiry produced before this Court, the same has been returned in Court to Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu