THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21220 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner was former employee of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Adilabad. His services were terminated by the management of the Bank after framing charge and after the said charge was proved after domestic enquiry. The petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Labour against his order of termination. The second respondent by order dated 14.09.1998 in exercise of his appellate powers under Section 48 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service. As against the said appellate order of the second respondent, the management namely the respondents 3 and 4 filed further appeal to the first respondent/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 48 of the Act. The first respondent modified order of the second respondent by directing the management to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- instead of reinstatement. Questioning the said order of the first respondent, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring order dated 24.08.2001 passed by the first respondent in SA No. 1 of 1999 to the extent of awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement as arbitrary and illegal and for further direction to the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service. The fourth respondent filed counter opposing this writ petition. Charge framed against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Assistant General Manager/Enquiry Officer of the Bank is as follows: “About 6.15 on 06.07.1987 the charged employee has entered into the bank premises fully drunk and started misbehaving with the staff working at the Branch at the closing hours ignoring the repeated advise of the Branch Manager to leave the premises and not to cause inconvenience to the staff.” During enquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined witnesses on behalf of both the parties including the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer gave report finding that the charge is proved from evidence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer culled out the following pieces of confession and denial of facts: 1. “he has visited the branch in the evening hours just before the closing of office on 06.07.1987 to meet his co-employee. 2. the society office (PACS. Khanapur) was also situated adjacent to the Branch Office. 3. he accepted that he has visited branch and society office under influence of liquor in intoxication mood. 4. he had denied that he had not created nuisance in the branch or society and talked loudly which was considered as creating nuisance by the Deputy General Manager and Branch Manager. 5. he denied that he had no bad intention or enemity to pick up quarrel with any body. 6. he had demanded money as a loan from the secretary. 7. he has stated that he was not taken away by the police. 8. he finally agreed that he had attended the branch under the influence of liquor and in intoxication mood.” Before the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority, the petitioner denied of having made any confession of the allegations. Mere denial of the confessions made before the Enquiry Officer will not take away those confessions/admissions contained in the report of the Enquiry Officer. Both the appellate authorities proceeded as if there were no confessions made by the petitioner, ignoring the confessions set out by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that during domestic enquiry, no evidence of the petitioner’s intoxication at the time of the alleged incident, was let in by the management by examining any doctor. In fact, the petitioner was not sent to any doctor by the management immediately after the incident to find out whether the petitioner was in intoxicated condition or not. But, in this case, sending the petitioner for medical examination immediately after the incident and examining the doctor to prove the intoxication of the petitioner, are not necessary having regard to admission made by the petitioner during domestic enquiry. What is admitted need not be proved. Therefore, production of any medical witness about the petitioner’s intoxication at the time of incident, is not in any way fatal to the Enquiry Report. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that during domestic enquiry, even though six witnesses were cited by the management, only one witness was examined to prove the incident and that the person who gave report to the police after the incident, was not examined. Evidence has to be weighed and should not be counted. Strict rules of evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have no application in domestic enquiries. The person who gave police report after the incident, may be a necessary witness for criminal trial of the offence relating to the incident, if the case is filed by the police before the Magistrate. His non-examination in domestic enquiry, is not in any way fatal to the enquiry. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no reasons are given by the first respondent to modify order of reinstatement into one for payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/-. It is stated by the respondents’ counsel that subsequent to order passed by the first respondent, the management paid compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel stated that even if the petitioner were put in service, he attained age of superannuation in the year 2007 itself and that therefore in case the petitioner is granted relief in this writ petition he would receive notional increments and retirement benefits. It is contended that this is not a case relating to misappropriation of funds or fraud in the Bank. In opinion of this Court, attending the office in drunken condition and misbehaving with colleagues and superiors in that intoxicated condition, abusing them in abusive language in public place like bank premises, is not tolerable at all by any stretch. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the first respondent instead of allowing the second appeal in toto modified order of the second respondent by ordering compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of his previous service instead of reinstating him into service. Simply because the appellate authorities found that the domestic enquiry report is improper, reinstatement alone is not the relief which can be granted. The first respondent exercising his discretion ordered payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- instead of reinstating the petitioner into service. The order passed by the first respondent is not in any way offending any provisions of law. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 03.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21220 of 2001 Dt.03.12.2010