THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1408 of 2005 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 17.02.2003, passed in W.P.No.4087 of 1998, whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court confirmed the award dated 21.10.1997 passed in I.D.No.28 of 1990 by the Industrial Tribunal- I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was a Staff Nurse in the second respondent company and also the President of the Medical and Sanitary Employees Union in the year 1985. She was served with a charge sheet dated 06.10.1988, alleging that she beat the Superintendent, by name, Dr. A. Seshagiri Rao on 28.09.1988 at about 1.00 PM, with iron rod causing multiple injuries to him. She submitted an explanation denying the charge. Subsequently, she was suspended from service. After completion of departmental enquiry, she was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. Seeking reinstatement into service with full backwages, she filed I.D.No.28 of 1990 before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the same on 20.04.1993 directing the second respondent to reinstate the appellant into service with full backwages and other attendant benefits within one month from the date of the award, failing which the appellant is entitled to recover the wages from the date of the award. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed W.P.No.16794 of 1993 before this Court. Through order dated 24.06.1997, this Court while setting aside the said award remitted back the matter to the Tribunal for consideration afresh as per law after giving an opportunity of being beard to both the parties and in the light of the material on record and to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of the said order. On remand, the Tribunal by award dated 21.10.1997, held that the second respondent is justified in dismissing the appellant from service. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.4087 of 1998 before this Court. Through order dated 17.02.2003, the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition, against which, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Labour and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the Tribunal earlier held in favour of the appellant directing her reinstatement into service with full backwages, subsequent to remittal, it erroneously held against her and the same is illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that the Medical Superintendent while trying to assault and misbehave with the appellant fell down himself from the chair and sustained injuries. He further contended that the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court ought to have seen the observation made in W.P.No.16794 of 1993 with regard to non-production of the rod before the Enquiry Officer and non-appreciation of evidence and material on record, and taken note of the complaint filed by her against the Superintendent for his misbehavior in the office room. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent contended that when once the award of reinstatement of appellant was set aside by the learned single Judge of this Court by remitting back the matter, reinstatement does not exist. He submitted that the learned single Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence, by the order impugned, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 6. We have perused the record. The disciplinary authority after conducting a detailed enquiry held that the appellant assaulted the Medical Superintendent from behind with a steel rod causing multiple injuries on his person and that the charges levelled against her were held proved. The Tribunal based on the evidence of one Narayana, Attender, coupled with the medical evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the Superintendent, came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellant were proved. The main reason for inflicting the injuries is that the Superintendent suspended the appellant for a period of three days. Though she stated that she made a complaint against the Superintendent for assaulting her, no document was produced in support of the same. Since the earlier award passed in favour of the appellant for her reinstatement was set aside by the learned single Judge remanding the matter to the Tribunal, which in turn passed the order justifying the order of dismissal from service, we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the observations made earlier. The learned single Judge by the order impugned held that the punishment of dismissal from service does not warrant interference on the ground of disproportionality and we do not find any infirmity in it. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:02.08.2011 sj