THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.15350 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and the counsel for the respondent 2 and 3 – Management. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2001, passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.201/1999, in confirming the order of dismissal passed by the respondent – Management and thereby dismissing the I.D. filed by the workman, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner is the workman. He was appointed in the respondent – company as Junior Clerk in the year 1979 at Pardeep and thereafter transferred to the Kakinada in the year 1986. While so, he was issued charge sheet for thirteen charges and thereafter, pursuant to the report of the enquiry officer, holding guilty of charges 1, 2, 4 and 6, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and by order dated, the Tribunal while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer and having regard to the facts and circumstances, dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the workman. 4. The workman who appeared in person, contended that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and through he has given documents to his counsel to file before the Tribunal, he failed to file the said documents and the Tribunal without considering the material evidence on record, confirmed the order of dismissal. He further made averments, with aspersions on the officials of the respondent – company, which are not on record before the Tribunal and hence they are not being referred to. With these averments, he sought to set aside the impugned award of the Tribunal and direct the respondent – Management to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Management, supporting the impugned award, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the petitioner himself filed I.A.No.296/2000 in I.D.No.201/1999 to set aside the order of suspension dated 26.7.1999 and also to set aside the domestic enquiry held by the Management and to order fresh enquiry. The Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry is valid. Hence, the said finding in the absence of any contra evidence, cannot be interfered with. 7. The petitioner was charge sheeted for 13 charges, which relate to willful insubordination; theft of important office letters; habitual negligence of work and absence without leave or permission; persistent misbehavior towards his superiors and colleagues; disclosing information to outsiders in regard to the business/process of the company which was prejudicial to the interests of company; disobedience of instructions of superiors; and fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company’s business. Out of the thirteen charges, four charges were proved viz., (1) willful insubordination; (2) theft of important office letters; (3) persistent misbehavior towards the superiors and colleagues by the workman and (4) disobedience of instructions of superiors. 8. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the Tribunal, based on evidence found that the petitioner is indulging in addressing letters with complaints, directly to the Head Office, though the Management under Ex.M-5 has categorically directed not to communicate with the Head Office directly. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the petitioner is indulging in willful insubordination. The next charge against the petitioner is that he committed theft of important office letters. The petitioner in his evidence has admitted that one has to take permission from manager to take copies of the office papers or vouchers. He produced boat notices under Ex.A-56. He did not produce any material to show that he obtained any prior permission. Further, his case is that that the said letter were given by some body and that he did not commit theft. But he failed to examine the person who gave the said letters to him. The management has produced Exs.M-22 to M- 25 letters of the staff, which are to the effect that the petitioner is in the habit of searching the papers on their tables and desks. It is well settled that in departmental enquiries, strict rules of evidence cannot be made applicable and only preponderance of probabilities have to be examined. Under the present charge, theft of office documents is alleged against the petitioner. He stated that the said documents were issued by somebody, but he failed to examine them and on the other hand, he admitted that before taking office documents, permission is necessary, but failed to produce any permission and, therefore, in these circumstances and coupled with the documents under Ex.M-22 to M-25, whereunder the other staff members complained that the petitioner is in the habit of searching their tables, the Tribunal rightly found that the finding of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of this charge, are based on evidence. The other two charges that are proved against the petitioner are persistent misbehavior towards the superiors and colleagues and disobedience of instructions of superiors. The Tribunal on appreciation of the entire evidence found that the said charges are proved. Hence, the said findings, cannot be interfered with by this court under the writ jurisdiction in the absence of any contra evidence. 9. Coming to the proportionality of punishment and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, the charges that are proved against the petitioner are insubordination, theft, persistent misbehavior towards superiors and colleagues and disobedience of instructions of superiors, which are detrimental to the interest of the organization where he is working, therefore, the Tribunal rightly refrained to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act and I do not find any justification to interfere with the same. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------- -------- 28—04— 2011