THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.84 of 2006 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2005 passed in W.P.No.22971 of 2005, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 06.10.2005 passed in I.D.No.73 of 2002 by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant while working as Godown Clerk in the respondents’ Corporation was issued with a charge memo dated 18.03.1997, on the ground of misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.2,73,696.90ps. After enquiry, he was removed from service vide order dated 03.04.1998. Challenging the said removal order, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.73 of 2002 before the Tribunal. By order dated 19.08.2003, the Tribunal held that the respondents-Corporation did not adduce any evidence to prove the charges levelled against the appellant and therefore, the punishment imposed against him should be held failed and accordingly, ordered for reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed W.P.No.22649 of 2003. Through order dated 22.06.2005, this Court set aside the award dated 19.08.2003, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide whether the domestic enquiry held by the Corporation is proper or defective and thereupon to decide the matter in accordance with law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeta Kapalish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court. On remand, the Tribunal, by award dated 06.10.2005, held that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and directed the Corporation to file certain documents and examine the witnesses in support of the charges levelled against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed W.P.No.22971 of 2005. Through the impugned order, the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned therein. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge ought not to have recorded the finding with regard to the domestic enquiry that it is invalid and is vitiated. He further contended that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the Enquiry Officer himself was acted as Prosecuting Officer as well as the Presiding Officer, and no witness on behalf of the Corporation was examined nor any opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the complainant and other persons. He also contended that the learned single Judge did not consider the aspect of procedural irregularity in conducting domestic enquiry. 5. We have perused the material on record. As many as three charges were framed against the appellant as per the charge memo and later two charges were added. In the earlier award, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and hence, it was vitiated and even thereafter, the Corporation did not adduce any evidence so as to prove the charges framed against the appellant. Hence, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the appellant. After remittal by this Court in W.P.No.22649 of 2003 filed by the Corporation, the Tribunal though directed the Corporation to conduct fresh enquiry, it has not conducted, except producing before the Tribunal the Xerox copies with regard to the service of the charge memo on the wife of the appellant. By the order impugned, the learned single Judge had focused on three grounds viz., (a) the second respondent was not served with the charge memos; (b) he was not furnished with the documents requested by him and (c) he was not furnished copy of the enquiry report. But, there are certain procedural irregularities in conducting the domestic enquiry such as, the Corporation has not examined any witness in the presence of the appellant with regard to the charges framed against the appellant and so, his cross-examining any witness does not arise. 6. Further, as per the Note to Appendix-E of the Procedure to be followed in inflicting punishments, no document or statement produced or recorded at the preliminary enquiry can be relied on at the regular enquiry unless such document is duly proved on the person who made the statement in regular enquiry or unless such document or statement is admitted by the accused employee. When once the matter is required fresh enquiry, which was not done by the Corporation, only based on the previous statements and the Xerox copies, the domestic enquiry cannot be treated as legal and valid. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge of this Court did not consider the matter in proper perspective and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order impugned. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:20.09.2011 sj