IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19777 of 1999 Between: N.V.Ramana S/o. N.G.K.Gokhle, R/o.D.No. 3-5-1140, Ramkote, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-II, Rep by its Chairman Hyderaba. 2 Works Manager, A.P.Foods, Nacharam, R.R.District. 3 A.P.Foods, Rep. by its Mg.Director Nacharm, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue n appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the Award dated 22-6- 1999 passed in I.D.No. 157 of 1998 on the file of the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with all other consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other and further order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : MR.G.RAMACHANDRA RAO FOR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 19777 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed, questioning the award dated 22-06-1999 in I.D.No.157 of 1998 passed by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal- II, Hyderabad. The third respondent is a Company, which manufactures nutritious foods. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Security Guard in the year 1983 in the respondent-Company, and was promoted in the year 1991 to the post of Tradesman- B. On 02-09-1994, the Deputy Manager of the Company, working in the HRD Department, complained to the Works Manager that the petitioner is indulging in falsification of documents with an intention to misappropriate the money of the Company. Based on the said complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, mainly on the ground that he has produced a tampered cash receipt bearing No.715436 dated 02-08-1994, issued by M/s. Deepak Transport Private Limited. It was further alleged that the petitioner has tampered the cash receipt issued for Rs.80/- as Rs.280/-, and thus indulged in misconduct, and therefore, a show cause notice was issued to that effect. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he admitted his guilt. In spite of the same, a detailed departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the ground that the said conduct of tampering the receipt referred to above, amounts to major misconduct. Based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 27-01-1995, Ex.W6. Though the order of dismissal was passed upon his confession, but, however, the petitioner has questioned it by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Tribunal. Petitioner himself was examined as WW-1 on his behalf and got marked Exs.W-1 to W-6. On behalf of respondents, the Manager HRD Department was examined as M.W.1 and documentary evidence under Exs.M.1 to M.22 were marked. While appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has rejected the defence of the petitioner that the confession of guilt by him was under duress, and therefore, it dismissed the I.D. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge framed against the petitioner and also the order of dismissal were vague and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. It was further argued that the order of dismissal was passed without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner, and also without furnishing the copy of enquiry report. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, that in this case, as the charge levelled against the petitioner is a serious one, the order of dismissal was passed, after conducting necessary enquiry. It is submitted that the Tribunal itself has gone into the matter in detail and after perusal of the evidence on record, rejected the application filed by the petitioner, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. It is evident from the order of dismissal itself that the main misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that he has tampered the cash receipt issued by M/s. Deepak Transport Private Limited by changing the figures from Rs.80/- to Rs.280/-. In view of the said allegation made against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the charge framed is vague. Though the petitioner has confessed the guilt of tamper, but, however, subsequently, he sought to defend himself by stating that his signatures were obtained by the Management, promising to provide a job to his wife. The Tribunal, after the scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, categorically recorded a finding that except the self claimed evidence of the petitioner as WW.1, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate this ground. Further, by the time when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, he was placed under suspension. The version put-forth by the petitioner that his signatures were obtained for providing a job to his wife appears to be far from truth, and the Tribunal in the impugned award itself, has also observed that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Section 11-A of the Act. Having regard to the serious nature of the charge levelled against the petitioner, which is tampering of cash receipt, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The Tribunal, having considered the seriousness of the charge, rightly did not invoke discretion under Section 11-A of the Act to substitute the punishment of dismissal with any other lesser punishment. Even the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that he was not given proper opportunity, also cannot be accepted for the reason that initially, a show cause notice in Ex.W.4 was issued and the petitioner has filed his reply under Ex.W.5. Further, in the disciplinary proceedings a charge memo dated 07-11-1994 was issued under Ex.M.2, for which, the petitioner has filed his reply under Ex.M.3. Thereafter, the final show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. In that view of the matter, I do not find any flaw in the procedure adopted by the respondents in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, which led to passing of dismissal order. Further, from the evidence on record, it appears that the past conduct of the petitioner is also not satisfactory to the Management as evident from Exs.M.18 and 20, which are memo and apology letter submitted by the petitioner on account of his unauthorised absence. For the aforesaid reasons, inasmuch as the Tribunal has liberally considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, I do not find any ground, which warrants any interference with the award passed by the Tribunal, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 19-08-2008 KLP