Writ courts will not reappreciate evidence absent perversity or material legal error.

The petitioner, a bank clerk, was charged with receiving ₹5,300 and ₹100 from a customer on 2 February 1993 for deposit into the customer’s accounts, failing to account for the amounts, and making allegedly fictitious entries in the relevant records. The charge-sheet, issued on 8 September 1998, alleged misconduct under Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 15 December 1999, and his appeal was rejected

The Tribunal held the departmental inquiry unfair and permitted the Bank to prove the misconduct by leading evidence before it. It ultimately upheld the dismissal in its award dated 23 March 2017

The petitioner challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, relying principally on delay, defects in the charge-sheet, the customer’s failure to recall the transaction, and the absence of a separate charge of misappropriation, cheating or forgery

Whether the delay between the alleged transaction and issuance of the charge-sheet vitiated the disciplinary proceedings

Whether the charge-sheet’s alleged failure to include a separate statement of allegations and lists of witnesses and documents caused material prejudice to the petitioner

Whether the Tribunal’s finding of misconduct and its decision to uphold dismissal were unsupported by the evidence or otherwise warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227

Under State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, delay in disciplinary proceedings must be assessed contextually, considering its duration, explanation, the nature and complexity of the charge, and prejudice to the employee; no fixed rule applies

P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board recognises that inordinate, unexplained delay, particularly where prejudicial, may warrant intervention

A charge must inform the employee with reasonable clarity of the case to be met; the judgment considered Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society in addressing the alleged omission of a statement of imputations

Under Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, writ review does not permit reappreciation of evidence as an appellate court; interference is justified where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or affected by a material legal or procedural error

The charge in this case was framed under Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement, concerning acts prejudicial to the Bank’s interests

The Court found that the Bank had not remained inactive throughout the period before the charge-sheet: the discrepancy came to light during reconciliation in 1996, after which the customer’s statement was recorded, the matter investigated, and handwriting evidence obtained

The charge-sheet identified the transaction, amounts, accounts, alleged failure to account for the money, and alleged entries, giving the petitioner reasonable notice of the case despite the absence of separate lists or a statement of imputation

Because the Tribunal had set aside the domestic inquiry and the Bank then led evidence afresh, the award rested on the evidence before the Tribunal, including the customer’s testimony, banking records, and handwriting evidence

The customer’s later inability to recall the transaction did not, considered with his other evidence and the documentary material, render the Tribunal’s conclusion unsupported; nor did the absence of a complaint or financial loss negate the charged conduct

Applying the limited scope of writ review, the Court found no perversity, absence of evidence, or material legal error, and held dismissal not so disproportionate as to warrant interference

The impugned award was upheld and the petition dismissed