JUDGMENT : Tapen Sen, J. This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 12.06.2014 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 15750 (W) of 2013, Nirmal Kumar Chanda v. State of West Bengal & Ors. whereby and whereunder the said Hon'ble Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding inter-alia that the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned award on proper appreciation of facts and evidence and therefore the same did not call for any interference. 2. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) herein challenged an award dated 17.10.2012 passed in Case No. VIII-01 of 2000 by the learned 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal whereby and where under the Charges leveled against the Appellant was held to have been proved by M/s Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (Respondent No. 3 herein) and therefore his dismissal from service was found to be proper and justified. Consequently, the learned Tribunal also held that the Appellant was not entitled to any relief. 3. According to the Appellant, he was, at the relevant time, a Lower Division Clerk under the Respondent No. 3 and was posted at the Gate Office. By a notice to Show- cause dated 5/4/1995, the Appellant was asked to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for approaching one Smt. Rani Chakraborty, a Peon in the Deputy Director's Office allowing outsiders to stay in her quarters. The Petitioner filed an explanation on and about 19/04/1995 denying the allegations but without considering the same, the concerned authority placed him under suspension w.e.f 22.06.1996. 4. The Petitioner was then served with a Charge-sheet dated 29.06.1995 containing various allegations which, according to the Appellant, were misconceived and mala-fide. The Appellant filed a reply on 22.07.1995 denying the allegations and after an expiry of more than a month, he was informed by a letter dated 02.08.1995 that a Professor namely A.K. Bhowmick had been appointed as Enquiry Officer. A list of documents was mentioned without supplying him the copies thereof. 5. The Appellant further stated before the Writ Court that after four months from the date of issuance of the Charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer, for the first time, informed him by a letter dated 11.10.1995 that a preliminary enquiry would be held on 17.10.1995. A list of documents was mentioned without supplying him the copies thereof. 5. The Appellant further stated before the Writ Court that after four months from the date of issuance of the Charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer, for the first time, informed him by a letter dated 11.10.1995 that a preliminary enquiry would be held on 17.10.1995. In reply, the Appellant filed a representation before the Enquiry Officer on 14.10.1995 praying for a reasonable opportunity by supplying copies of the listed documents and also by allowing him to be defended by a Lawyer. By letter dated 15.11.1995 the Enquiry Officer informed that enquiry proceedings would be held for the first time on 30.11.1995. The Appellant again filed a representation making a similar prayer and by his representation dated 09.01.1996, he disclosed the name of his defence counsel and requested the Enquiry Officer to allow him to be properly defended by such counsel. However, in spite of his representation the Appellant was not allowed to be defended with the help of his defence counsel and he was not given any opportunity to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses. 6. The Appellant further alleged that the enquiry proceedings were held in contravention of fair procedure and therefore the Appellant moved this Court in a Writ Petition registered as CO No. 1294 (W) of 1996 against his order of suspension and also against the Charge-sheet. The Appellant further stated that even during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the concerned Respondents dismissed him from service by a letter dated 16.02.1996. 7. On 16.12.1996 the said Writ Petition was disposed off quashing the order of dismissal from service. However, liberty was given to the management of the Respondent No. 3 to initiate departmental proceedings afresh from the stage of issuance of a fresh Charge-sheet. 8. In terms of the said Order dated 16.12.1996, the management of IIT then issued a fresh Charge-sheet on 20.12.1996 containing various allegations which were similar to those mentioned in the earlier Charge-sheet. Thereafter, enquiries were held and a report submitted on 28.02.1997 with the copy to the Appellant along with a 2nd show-cause notice. 9. Thereafter and according to the Appellant, the concerned Respondents dismissed him from service by letter dated 01.04.1997 without giving him any personal hearing. 10. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT, Kharagpur. Thereafter, enquiries were held and a report submitted on 28.02.1997 with the copy to the Appellant along with a 2nd show-cause notice. 9. Thereafter and according to the Appellant, the concerned Respondents dismissed him from service by letter dated 01.04.1997 without giving him any personal hearing. 10. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT, Kharagpur. According to the Appellant the said appeal was disposed off against him in a mechanical manner. 11. The Appellant then moved the Writ Court vide WP No. 13241(W) of 1997, which was disposed off on 07.08.1998 giving liberty to the Appellant to raise industrial dispute. Consequently, the Appellant invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal, Kharagpur. Conciliation proceedings were held but ultimately the same ended in failure and therefore by a notification No. 3166-IR dated 24.12.1999, the Govt. of West Bengal, Deptt. of Labour referred the following questions/disputes for adjudication:- "(i) whether the dismissal from service of Shri Nirmal Kumar Chanda by the management of Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, is justified? (ii) to what relief, if any, is he entitled?" 12. The matter, ultimately was referred to the learned 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication and by his award dated 17.10.2012, the said learned Tribunal disposed off the reference by holding that the dismissal of the Appellant from service was justified and therefore the Appellant was not entitled to any relief. 13. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant filed the connected Writ Petition being WP No. 15750(W) of 2013 and by a Judgment dated 12.06.2014, the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as stated at the outset. 14. Mr. Madhusudan Dutta, learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised various points. He has submitted that one of the charges being Charge No. 2 is vague because no details of the Officers of the Institute whose signatures the Appellant is alleged to have been forged has been given nor any details with regard to the names of the outsiders who were said to have occupied the quarter of Rani Chakraborty at the instance of the Appellant, were given. He has further submitted that the Order of the Tribunal is based on suspicion only and the action of the learned Tribunal in considering the facts of another Criminal Case in which the Appellant had been convicted but which had ended in a compromise before the High Court, was uncalled for. Mr. Dutta has challenged the award on the ground of perversity and has submitted inter-alia that when, in her cross-examination, Rani Chakraborty had herself stated that she knew nothing about the case, the Tribunal therefore could not have relied upon her evidence. 15. It appears that the charges leveled against the Appellant was that he had misutilised Forms for Appointment in a fraudulent manner and with the view to extract money from outsiders, he had fraudulently given them false promises of appointment. Some of these outsiders were kept in the quarter of Rani Chakraborty. A further charge was leveled against the Appellant and that was that he had forged signatures of Officers of the Institute for issuing fake Appointment Letters. Though, in her cross-examination, Rani Chakraborty may have said that she knew nothing about the case but by a letter written by her to the Registrar on 18.04.1995 (Exhibit 1/c before the Tribunal), it was evident that she had admitted having sheltered three outsiders in her quarter at the instance of the Appellant who was her maternal uncle. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal was absolutely right when it observed that what was written by Rani Chakraborty in Ext. 1/c corroborated the evidences given by PWs 1, 3, 4 & 9 in their depositions. These witnesses had all stated that three persons namely Rakesh Uma, Arvind Kumar & Jitender Singh were found staying in Quarter No. G-112. This fact stood further corroborated by Ext. 1/h being a letter written by P.N. Chakraborty (PW 4). This letter dated 12.03.1995 is corroborative of the fact that these three persons were found, upon an inspection having been carried out in that regard, to be staying/occupying the said quarter and that they had come from Arrah in the Dist. of Bihar seeking jobs. 16. On charges of forgery etc., the learned Tribunal, considered various witnesses including PWs 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12. It also considered documents including Ext. of Bihar seeking jobs. 16. On charges of forgery etc., the learned Tribunal, considered various witnesses including PWs 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12. It also considered documents including Ext. 1/b, 1/c, 1/d, 1/e, 1/f & 1/g. These witnesses and these documents bore ample testimony to show and establish that the Appellant had used fake Forms, Identity Certificates, Appointment Letters etc. In the context of coming to a conclusion as to whether the workman/Appellant used the Institute's format of Appointment Letter, Seal, extracted money from outsiders and forged signatures for issuing fake Appointment Letters, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses and the documents referred to above. PW 6, Satya Ranjan Das, had stated that the documents relied upon in the Charge-sheet were recovered from the Gate Office and that fake Appointment Letters signed by different authorities were also recovered from the same office. PW 7, B.K. Dhindaw had stated that PW 6 had placed before him a file containing Call Letters, Offer Letters, Acceptance Notes and Attestation Forms and one such form bore his signature. PW 6 had further informed him that these documents had been found in the almirah behind the seat of the Appellant where he used to keep his papers. From the same almirah, PW 6 had also found several Bank Drafts, Certificates, Mark-sheets, Appointment Letters, Acceptance Letters etc. Other witnesses had also made similar statements and one of the witnesses namely PW 1, Nepal Chandra Das had specifically deposed that when the Appellant had been transferred to the NCC Office from the Gate Office, he had left all papers in the corner of that almirah and had told him that he would remove these papers in due course of time. Moreover, from the drawer also used by the Appellant in the Gate Office, fake Appointment Letters, photocopies of School and College Certificates and Bank Drafts had also been recovered. Though, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that there were some minor discrepancies and in consistencies in the evidence of these witnesses but he was right when he observed that on an overall consideration he found no reason to disbelieve them because their evidence unfolded the fact that some documents which had been placed before the Tribunal showed that the workman had used fake documents which were marked Exts. referred to above. referred to above. PW 13, Prabir Kumar Maitra, was an examiner of these documents. He had stated that he received all these documents marked Ext. 3 from the Registrar of IIT and he had also given his opinion thereon. Ext, 3 was Memo No. 14084 dated 10.11.1995. Ext. 3/a was the opinion given by PW 13 and this revealed upon police verification that the original hand-writings of the Appellant was encircled, stamped and marked. These were considered and the opinion was that the hand-writings were written by the writer of the original writings marked Ext. A/1 to A/5. These original hand-writings were those of the Appellant himself. Therefore, if the Tribunal has used the words "suspicion" or "needle of suspicion", the same in the opinion of this Court cannot be brushed aside nor can it be criticized by saying that the impugned award suffers from the vice of vagueness. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was absolutely right in applying the theory of "preponderance of probabilities". 17. Consequently, the Hon'ble Single Judge was correct when he observed that in disciplinary proceedings, the Charges are to be decided on the basis of probabilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that all that is necessary in departmental proceedings is that there should be some material on record to justify the conclusion as to whether or not the delinquent had committed any misconduct. 18. We are therefore of the view that neither the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge nor the award by the learned Tribunal calls for any interference by this Court. 19. As a consequence, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. The same is Dismissed. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent Certified Copy to be issued upon appropriate application(s) being made in that regard. I Agree, Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.