ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the proceedings dated 31.07.2010 and 26.05.2011 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively. 2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The 1 st petitioner was initially appointed as a Cashier in the respondent bank on 13.07.1982 at Kadipikonda Branch, Warangal and thereafter, he was promoted as Head Cashier in the year 1989 and Special Assistant in the year 1998 and posted at Kadipikonda Branch. In July 2007, the 1 st petitioner was transferred to the Wadlapudi Branch. (b) While the 1 st petitioner was working at Kadipikonda Branch, the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, issued a Memo, dated 07.12.2007, stating that he had passed a cheque/an instrument in respect of Mrs. Afzal Bee, SBI A/c No.20510653 on 06.08.2007 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.15,000/-. The 1 st petitioner submitted an explanation on 28.12.2007 denying the allegation levelled against him. The 2 nd respondent issued a Memo on 17.1.2008 in respect of the same issue and also a Memo dated 28.01.2008, alleging certain irregularities in the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.85,000/- from SB A/c No.2008204 in the name of Mr.S.Singh. The 1 st petitioner submitted an explanation to the said Memo on 20.02.2008 denying the allegation levelled against him. While the matter stood thus, the 1st petitioner was suspended vide proceedings dated 18.02.2008. (c) While so, the 2nd respondent issued another Memo on 01.04.2008 alleging that the 1 st petitioner has withdrawn an amount of Rs.53,000/- from SB A/c.No. 2006032 of Mrs.Malanbi and Mr.Ghouse, joint account. The 1st petitioner submitted an explanation on 28.04.2008. The 2 nd respondent issued another Memo on 28.06.2008 alleging withdrawal of an amount of Rs.35,000/- from SB A/c.No.13240100006202 of Mrs.Afzal Bee. The 1 st petitioner submitted an explanation on 28.07.2008. The 2 nd respondent issued another Memo on 17.11.2008, alleging the withdrawal of Rs.45,300/- from SB A/c.No.13420100001903 in the name of P.Sarojana. The 1st petitioner submitted an explanation on 08.12.2008 denying the allegations levelled against him. (d) One Sri K.Vijaya Raju, Branch Manager, Warangal Branch, was appointed to investigate the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the account of Ms.Afzal Bee. The 1st petitioner submitted an explanation on 08.12.2008 denying the allegations levelled against him. (d) One Sri K.Vijaya Raju, Branch Manager, Warangal Branch, was appointed to investigate the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the account of Ms.Afzal Bee. The Investigation Officer submitted his report on 27.11.2007, stating that the 1 st petitioner and one Sri M.Satyanaraya are responsible for the alleged irregularities, and he also pointed out certain lapses on the part of other staff members. (e) While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued another charge Memo, dated 24.06.2009, incorporating the above allegations and appointing Mr.M.Sheshagiri Rao, Chief Manager, Masabtank Branch, Hyderabad, as an Enquiry Officer and directed the 1 st petitioner to submit a written statement (if any) to the Enquiry Officer. The 1 st petitioner was permitted to defend by a representative of the Registered Trade Union of Bank employees. The Enquiry Officer issued a notice, dated 14.07.2009, stating that a preliminary hearing would be held on 01.08.2009 at 11:00 am at Bank of Baroda, Kadipikonda, and the 1st petitioner was directed to select the name of the defence representative. In the said meeting, on 01.08.2009, the 1st petitioner has given the name of Mr.Shiva Shankar, Computer Operator, Guntur Branch, the President of all India Bank Employees Federation (AP Unit), to defend the matter. (f) The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.02.2010 stating that the charges framed against the 1 st petitioner are proved. Based on the enquiry report, the 2 nd respondent, issued a proposed punishment order, dated 15.06.2010, proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, apart from treating the period of suspension as not on duty and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,18,300/- from his terminal benefits. The preliminary hearing was held on 25.06.2010 on the proposed punishment. The 1 st petitioner attended the preliminary hearing and submitted his submissions. However, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.7.2010 dismissing the 1 st petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 1 st petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent, which was rejected on 26.5.2011. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry without giving a reasonable and fair opportunity to the 1 st petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer is based upon surmises and conjectures. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry without giving a reasonable and fair opportunity to the 1 st petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer is based upon surmises and conjectures. The Enquiry Officer relied on the evidence of the co-employees of the 1st petitioner, and he has not considered the evidence on record. The Enquiry Officer has also not taken into consideration the defence statement submitted by the 1 st petitioner. There is no legal evidence against the 1st petitioner to prove the charges levelled against him. In the absence of the evidence of the complainants, the evidence of co-employees cannot be the basis for the Enquiry Officer to come to a conclusion that the 1 st petitioner has committed irregularities and to hold that the charges levelled against the 1 st petitioner are proved. Therefore, the imposition of punishment by the 2 nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer has not furnished any documents as requested by the 1 st petitioner. However, without furnishing the documents and without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the 1 st petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the 1st petitioner were proved. The 2 nd respondent has not properly investigated the matter and has erroneously imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The 1 st respondent, without considering the contentions raised by the 1st petitioner, mechanically passed an order confirming the order passed of the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings and allow the writ petition. 6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The Respondent Bank issued Memos dated 07.12.2007/17.01.2008 and 28.01.2008 in respect of the financial irregularities in the accounts of Mrs. Afzal Bee and Mr.S.Singh. The 1 st petitioner has given an explanation on 28.12.2007 and 20.02.2008. The Respondent Bank, having not satisfied with the explanation dated 28.12.2007, issued the order of Suspension dated 18.02.2008. (b) The charges framed against the 1 st petitioner are as follows :- a) You have misappropriated the Bank's funds to the tune of Rs.2,33,300/-, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. The Respondent Bank, having not satisfied with the explanation dated 28.12.2007, issued the order of Suspension dated 18.02.2008. (b) The charges framed against the 1 st petitioner are as follows :- a) You have misappropriated the Bank's funds to the tune of Rs.2,33,300/-, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. b) Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers as per para 5(d) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 for workmen c) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to the interest of the bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss as per para 5(j) of Bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002 for workmen. (c) The 1 st petitioner was permitted to appoint a representative to present his defence. He was given an opportunity at the preliminary hearing, and his submissions were taken on record as part of the enquiry. The due procedure has been followed by the Respondent Bank. (d) As against the Enquiry Report dated 19.02.2010, no reply was given by petitioner No.1, and as against the proposed punishment order dt.15.06.2010, an opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner No.1 on 25.06.2010. At every stage of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner No.1 was given an opportunity of hearing, and in view of the gross misconduct of petitioner No.1 in all five transactions of financial misappropriations pertaining to withdrawals of funds, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.07.2010 dismissing the 1st petitioner from service and the same was confirmed by the 1 st respondent vide proceedings dated 26.05.2011. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is a settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the banking system survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents wherein the employee workman are expected to act with great trust, absolute devotion, integrity and honesty which is a sine qua non for every bank employee in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct showing impact on the credibility of the operations of the bank and as such the capital punishment of dismissal is appropriate. 8. Any misappropriation, even temporary of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct showing impact on the credibility of the operations of the bank and as such the capital punishment of dismissal is appropriate. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trials, despite being quasi- judicial and quasi criminal. It is settled law that the proof may only be documentary and, in some cases, oral. The requirement of proof depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The "Doctrine of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not applicable to it, and the "Principle of the preponderance of probabilities" applies in disciplinary proceedings. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically prevent disciplinary action or exonerate an employee in a departmental inquiry, especially when the standards of proof are different. 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that petitioner No.1 has availed the option of Contributory Provident Fund and is not under the pension scheme. The provident fund amount of Rs.10,35,627/- was credited to his account on 18.02.2013. 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that at every stage of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner No.1 was given an opportunity of hearing and in view of the gross misconduct of petitioner No.1 in the five transactions of financial misappropriations pertaining to withdrawals of funds, the 2 nd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.07.2010 dismissing the 1st petitioner from service and the same was rightly confirmed by the 1 st respondent vide proceedings dated 26.05.2011. Therefore, the writ petition is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivas Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Chitturu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 13. The contention of the petitioner is that none of the complainants, who are alleged to have made complaints against the petitioner, were examined by the Enquiry Officer. The report of the Enquiry Officer is based upon mere surmises and conjectures. The Management witnesses MWs.1 to 4, who are co-employees of the petitioner, were listed as witnesses rather than charged employees. The contention of the petitioner is that none of the complainants, who are alleged to have made complaints against the petitioner, were examined by the Enquiry Officer. The report of the Enquiry Officer is based upon mere surmises and conjectures. The Management witnesses MWs.1 to 4, who are co-employees of the petitioner, were listed as witnesses rather than charged employees. The further contention of the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, dismissed him from service vide proceedings dated 31.07.2010. Even the appellate authority, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, rejected the appeal in a mechanical manner, thereby confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 14. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the judgment passed by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for PCR Cases, Warangal, in C.C.No.360 of 2017, dated 01.05.2018, wherein the petitioner was found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 418 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, he was acquitted for the said offences. 15. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that in the departmental enquiry, there is no clear cut evidence finding fault with the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, while investigating the entire issue, found the following lapses against the staff members :- “(a) Vouchers are not kept under lock and key (b) Drafter has not recounted the vouchers when he re- stitched the voucher, if he recounted the details of missing voucher might have known early i.e., before the complaint given by the account holder (c) Branch Manager or Jt.Manager was also not responded immediately to the information given by the drafter about the opening of stitched vouchers. (d) Cashier made payment to the Special Assistant without following the banks guidelines on cash payment to the customers (e) Not followed the four eye concept while posting and passing the withdrawal.” 16. In the Investigation report, it was observed that Mr.Satyanarayana, Cashier, helped the Special Assistant to draw money from the customer account by not following the bank guidelines. The statement of Mr.M.Satyanarayana during the investigation is that, when he called the token number several times for payment, none responded. In the Investigation report, it was observed that Mr.Satyanarayana, Cashier, helped the Special Assistant to draw money from the customer account by not following the bank guidelines. The statement of Mr.M.Satyanarayana during the investigation is that, when he called the token number several times for payment, none responded. On calling the token number once again before closure of payments, Mr.Sudhakar, Special Assistant, presented the token for payment and received cash by saying that the account holder requested him to collect the payments. To that extent, he produced copies of documents. 17. From the above investigation report, it is clear that at the request of the account holder only, the petitioner had received the amount, and there is no intention for the petitioner to commit fraud; moreover, he had returned the amount. 18. When several lapses were found by the Investigating Officer, even against the other staff members and the management of the Bank, the disciplinary authority imposing punishment only against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. 19. Moreover, in C.C.No.360 of 2017, the account holder, namely Smt.Afzal Bee turned hostile and deposed that she has no bank account with Bank of Baroda, Kazipet, and that she does not know the facts of the case, and that the police did not examine her. This itself shows that there are several irregularities in the entire banking system in that particular branch, where the petitioner is working, and even on that ground, the petitioner is not liable for punishment. 20. Even in the enquiry report, on one side, the Presenting Officer concluded that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved and, on the other side, in respect of the defence of charge-sheeted employee, it was observed as follows :- “When Mrs.Afzal bee approached the bank and stated that she did not receive Rs.15,000/- debited to her account, Mr.T.Sudhakar made gave away the amount owning the moral responsibility for having created the transaction but it was not because of any misappropriation on his part. The original instrument against which the payment of Rs.15,000/- was made, was not produced at enquiry to allege that Mr.T.Sudhakar cancelled the thumb impression on the original instrument and hence there is no evidence to blame Mr.Sudhakar on that account. Instrument not produced to ascertain who passed it. Receipt of payment denied. 21. The original instrument against which the payment of Rs.15,000/- was made, was not produced at enquiry to allege that Mr.T.Sudhakar cancelled the thumb impression on the original instrument and hence there is no evidence to blame Mr.Sudhakar on that account. Instrument not produced to ascertain who passed it. Receipt of payment denied. 21. Even the Enquiry Officer, while assessing the matter and giving a finding, observed as follows :- “MW.2 stated that when he was called for the token no several times the customer has not turned up, then Mr.T.Sudhakar told him that the token for the withdrawal was given to him and aksed for cash payment, then he paid the amount to Mr.T.Sudhakar. “needle is pointing towards that the party had not visited the branch.” Mr.M.Satyanarayana, MW2, during his cross-examination by DR deposed that Mr.Sudhakar is there in the branch for more than 20 years and he knows lot of customers, some times customers are sitting in SB cabin he asks for payment whom I pay after receiving the token. Here in this case, I have paid to him and I have not taken his signature on back of w/f as he is staff member.” However, when Afzal Bee complained, the CSE paid the amount to Afzal Bee on 03.10.2007 by obtaining a w/f for Rs.15,000/- putting the date of 06.08.2007 and kept with voucher bundle dated 06.08.2007 to avoid any further complication.” 22. Per contra, in the criminal case, the said account holder, i.e., Afzal Bee herself stated that she has no account in the said bank. Once there is an ambiguity in the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he cannot be punished. 23. As regards the enquiry report, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (CIVIL APPEAL No.5497 of 2025, dated 23.04.2015, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows :- “Finally, the Inquiry Officer and the respondents erred in law by recording findings against the appellant without any admissible evidence, leading to a manifest miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the dismissal from service and denial of consequential benefits are clearly erroneous and perverse.” 24. In the present case, during the course of the enquiry, the statements of the management witnesses alone were recorded, and none of the complainants were called upon to record their statements. Therefore, the dismissal from service and denial of consequential benefits are clearly erroneous and perverse.” 24. In the present case, during the course of the enquiry, the statements of the management witnesses alone were recorded, and none of the complainants were called upon to record their statements. In the said circumstances, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, in MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH’s case (supra), with regard to the acquittal of the accused from the criminal case, the Apex Court observed as follows :- “While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well- established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G.M.Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent original in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan. To assess the degree of similarity between the charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in the disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it is indeed crucial to review the material placed before 92024) 1 SCC 175 the Court where such an issue arises. However, we regret, absence of the departmental file has disabled us from looking into the same.” 25. In the above case, on one hand, the Apex Court observed that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from service and on the other hand, the Apex Court also observed that when the charges, evidence and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. 26. In the case at hand, the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are identical, and the witnesses are also identical. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Criminal Court concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the petitioner’s guilt and accordingly acquitted the petitioner. 27. When the criminal court acquitted the petitioner, considering the very same charges and evidence, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be sustained. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Criminal Court concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the petitioner’s guilt and accordingly acquitted the petitioner. 27. When the criminal court acquitted the petitioner, considering the very same charges and evidence, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be sustained. 28. Once both the proceedings in the departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings under a similar set of facts, and when the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, without considering the acquittal in the criminal case, issuance of proceedings dismissing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained. 29. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also raised the same objection, stating that on mere acquittal in the criminal case, the dismissal order cannot be set aside. But in the above case law, if the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents cannot be countenanced. 30. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE ( 2025 (2) SCR 404 ), wherein it was observed as follows :- “The appellant has been honourably acquitted by the competent court on the same set of facts, evidence and witness and, therefore, the dismissal order based on the same set of facts and evidence on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. “Such is not a situation in the present case. In our opinion, the present is not a case of no evidence; it is a case of not sufficient evidence. There is a clear distinction between the two situations. Therefore, in our opinion, the observations in GM Tank’s case would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 31. In the case at hand, the set of facts and evidence is the same in both the criminal case and departmental proceedings. A perusal of the enquiry report discloses that the Presenting Officer though listed the names of Management Witnesses; they have not been called for deposition. Moreover, the said Management Witnesses gave evidence in the criminal case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. A perusal of the enquiry report discloses that the Presenting Officer though listed the names of Management Witnesses; they have not been called for deposition. Moreover, the said Management Witnesses gave evidence in the criminal case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, Investigating Officer’s findings are ambiguous, and the Investigating Officer also found several lapses crept in the branch. So, in the said circumstances, the above case is in favour of the petitioner only. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the proceedings in RO:AP:VIG:V-61:1125, dated 31.07.2010, issued by the 2 nd respondent and proceedings in GM:SZ:F270:APPEAL: 38:379, dated 26.05.2011, issued by the 1 st respondent are liable to be set aside, and the same are accordingly set aside. 33. In view of setting aside the dismissal order, the respondent-Management is directed to pay all the benefits for which the 1st petitioner is entitled to, to his legal representatives, i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 4, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.