1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7904 OF 2008 Arun Dattaram Parte. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Chairman/Secretary, Hindi Prachar Samiti & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Arun D. Nimbalkar for the Petitioner. Mr. M.V. Joglekar with Mr. Rahul D. Oak for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. December 5, 2008. P.C. The Petitioner was a Library Attendant. A chargesheet was issued to him primarily on the basis of an incident which took place on 22nd August 2007. The Petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with the Librarian, Mrs.Shubhangi Vedak when she instructed a member of the Library Staff to relocate the chair from the staff area to the student section. The Petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with the Librarian and to have used vulgar language towards the Librarian. A disciplinary enquiry was convened, upon the issuance of a chargesheet. The Petitioner denied the charges and participated in 2 the enquiry. The Petitioner was permitted to be defended by an Advocate during the course of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was established. The Petitioner was dismissed from service. The Petitioner moved the University and College Tribunal in an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 12th September 2008. 2. The submission of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that there is no evidence whatsoever to sustain the charge of misconduct. The contention that the finding of misconduct is based on no evidence is clearly untenable. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has taken due note of the fact that during the course of the enquiry, the management examined the Librarian, Mrs.Vedak, MW 1; Bahadur Ram, the Attendant as MW2 and the Principal Dr.Usha Mukundan as MW3. From the record it appears that after the incident had taken place in the Library, the Librarian had lodged a complaint with the Principal. The Petitioner was present then in the office of the Principal and is alleged to have behaved improperly. The 3 Librarian deposed in the course of the evidence and her deposition was believed by the Enquiry Officer and by the Tribunal. The Librarian has specifically referred to the nature of the misbehaviour including the use of vulgar language by the Petitioner. The submission then which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that though an independent witness could have been examined by the management, the management has failed to do so. A disciplinary enquiry is not governed by the strict rules of evidence which govern a criminal trial. The absence of an independent witness is not ipso facto fatal to a disciplinary enquiry and ultimately the Tribunal which is statutorily vested with the jurisdiction to review the legality of an order passed in disciplinary proceedings would have to take an overall view on whether there was legally acceptable evidence to sustain the finding of misconduct. Whether a testimony of a particular witness is trustworthy has to be assessed on a robust and judicious evaluation of evidence in a disciplinary enquiry. There is no basis for the Court to hold that the Tribunal did not do so. In support of the charge that the Petitioner used improper language towards the Librarian, the Librarian deposed in evidence. There is absolutely no basis to 4 indicate that the Librarian was motivated by a desire to victimise the Petitioner or that he was falsely implicated by her. Contemporaneously the Librarian had lodged a complaint on 27th April 2007. 3. The next limb of the submission was that the Petitioner was in correspondence with the authorities of the State in regard to the contribution made to the Provident Fund and was hence victimised. However, that in itself is not a circumstance that would weigh against the finding of proved misconduct. In fact, the Petitioner's letter dated 1st June 2007 (Exh.C) would indicate that the management was contributing to his GPF regularly upto date. Even in his letter dated 16th August 2007 (Exh.E), the Petitioner has indicated that the difference on account of the Fourth Pay Commission wages had also been deposited. The plea of victimization cannot, therefore, be accepted. The law in regard to judicial review of a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry is settled. Once a domestic Tribunal enters a finding of fact based on evidence, normally it is not open to Tribunals or Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in 5 place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. [Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254 and Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh, 2008 LLR 432.] In the latter judgment, the Supreme Court has also dealt with the submission that there were no independent witnesses and held that this would not invalidate an enquiry. In fact, where the allegation of misconduct is that an employee has misbehaved with a co-worker the most natural witness would be the person against whom the improper behaviour was addressed. 4. For all these reasons, no case for interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction has been made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. .....