HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7279 of 2000 Between: S.Jagannadham. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam & others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7279 of 2000 ORDER: The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No. 565 of 1995 dated 05.08.1999, confirming the removal order passed by the second respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner-workman. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the services of the Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited in the year 1988; while he was working as a salesman a search was conducted in his office and certain books and other documents were seized; the petitioner was placed under suspension; a charge memo was issued to him on 15.12.1992 alleging that he had failed to account for the sale proceeds and had misappropriated Rs.41,000/- towards his personal use; an enquiry was held; the enquiry report was submitted; and the very same enquiry officer, who later became the disciplinary authority, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam by way of an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Before the Labour Court, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management; the petitioner examined himself as WW.1; and while the petitioner got marked Ex.W.1, the second respondent-employer marked Exs.M.1 to M.18. The Labour Court, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, disbelieved the petitioner’s contention that his signatures were obtained on plain white paper and the contents were later written thereupon. It held that there was no evidence to show that the said letters were obtained under coercion; overwhelming documentary evidence supported the oral testimony of the four witnesses, which showed that the impugned order of punishment did not suffer from any infirmity; the termination of the petitioner’s services was not unwarranted; and the punishment was justified. Before this Court Sri T.S. Rayulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would reiterate the very same submissions made before the Labour Court. He would further submit that out of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated, in excess of Rs.41,000/-, the petitioner had already repaid Rs.15,000/- and it was always open to the second respondent to adjust the remaining Rs.26,000/- from out of the amounts due to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further contend that since the very same enquiry officer who had held the petitioner guilty of the charges had, as the disciplinary authority, imposed the punishment of dismissal, the order of punishment necessitated being set aside. The contentions urged before this Court are devoid of merits. It is well settled that the enquiry officer acts merely as a delegate of the disciplinary authority upon whom the rules confer power to impose punishment. It is always open to the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry himself and the mere fact that the enquiry was conducted by another does not deprive the disciplinary authority of the power to impose the punishment. It is not the petitioner’s case that Sri David Livingston, who was the enquiry officer, is not the disciplinary authority. On the contrary, the submission is that, since he conducted the enquiry, he ought not to have imposed the punishment. There is no prohibition in law for the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry himself and to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee for proved acts of misconduct. Even otherwise, this contention pales into insignificance in as much as the Labour Court, while adjudicating the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry, held the enquiry to be defective and permitted the respondent-Management to adduce evidence afresh. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion, on the evidence adduced before it, that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and the appropriate punishment was the one imposed earlier i.e. removal from service. It is necessary to note that misappropriation of Rs.41,000/- is not denied. The submission is that, since Rs.15,000/- has been paid later and the remaining Rs.26,000/- can be adjusted from the amounts due to the petitioner, that cannot be a ground to impose punishment of removal from service. On a query from this Court, Sri T.S. Rayulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the said sum of Rs.26,000/- has not, as yet, been repaid. For the proved act of misconduct of misappropriation the punishment imposed of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. Even otherwise this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would interfere with the order of punishment only in rare cases that too if the punishment imposed is one which shocks its conscience. The punishment, in the present case, is not one such. Viewed from any angle, I see no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:25.02.2010 usd