#preponderanceofprobabilities

The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal order passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.  Since the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the prescribed rules and procedures, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the petitioner. The Court didn't find any illegality or unfairness in the inquiry proceedings and ruled that the disciplinary action was justified under the Standard Code Rules.

Mallinath Vithal Vathakar vs. The Registrar, University of Mumbai & three Others

WP 7268/2008

Before the High Court of Bombay

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R M Joshi J

The petitioner was to have been given a fair and adequate opportunity to defend himself, and the inquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice.

 Background

Mallinath Vathal Vathakar was appointed as a watchman at Sree Narayan Guru College of Commerce in Mumbai, on October 19, 1996, and his services were confirmed after two years of probation. In June 2003, he was promoted to the position of Library Attendant, a post reserved for the SC community. 

However, over time, he became the target of various complaints by college staff, including accusations of disrupting a blood donation program and threatening a professor. These incidents led to his suspension and the initiation of a departmental inquiry in September 2007 followed by dismissal from service.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal order by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, contending that the inquiry conducted against him was unfair and improper.

Legal Issue

Whether the departmental inquiry and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioner from his employment were conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner's Submission

The inquiry was not fair as not all witnesses listed by the management were examined during the proceedings. 

The recommendation of punishment by the inquiry officer was illegal and impacted the validity of the dismissal order.

Respondent's Submission

The inquiry was conducted over six to seven months, during which the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. 

Due process was followed in the inquiry, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and present his own evidence. 

The inquiry officer’s recommendation of punishment was in accordance with the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code Rules.

Court's Observation

The petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry, as he was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and present his own evidence. 

The inquiry officer conducted the proceedings without haste and the petitioner participated fully in the inquiry.

Furthermore, the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was under the relevant Standard Code Rules, which allowed for the recommendation of punishment by the inquiry officer.