HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6986 of 2001 ORDER: The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, in I.D.No.491 of 1997 dated 08.10.1990, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, an NMR Inspector Grade-II, filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), questioning the order of the first respondent dated 05.02.1986 terminating his services with effect from 29.01.1986 for his involvement in the diversion of levy cement, meant for canal works, to the open market for sale. On 28.01.1986, the vigilance authorities raided a vehicle carrying 200 cement bags and arrested all those in the vehicle, including the petitioner. All of them were kept under remand upto 13.02.1986, and the petitioner was released on 14.02.1986. The petitioner approached the first respondent on 14.02.1986 for joining duty, but was served with an order discharging him from service for his involvement in a criminal case. The said order of discharge was signed on 05.02.1986 and was served on the petitioner on 14.02.1986. The order of the first respondent dated 05.02.1986 discharging the petitioner from service was questioned before the Tribunal as being illegal and void. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner-workman examined himself as WW.1 and marked Exs.W.1 and W.2. On behalf of the first respondent, the divisional accounts officer was examined as MW.1 and Exs.M.1 to M.4 were marked. The Tribunal noted that it was the duty of the petitioner, as the Works Inspector, to arrange transportation of cement from the godown to the work spot; cement was delivered from the godown to the supervisor on receipt of an indent from deputy executive engineer; the supervisor, along with the petitioner, was found in the lorry; the Circle Inspector, vigilance cell arrested the petitioner along with others; the Joint Collector, Warangal had held that the petitioner was involved in diversion of levy cement for sale in the open market; the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of his involvement in the diversion of levy cement; the petitioner had admitted that the deputy executive engineer and the supervisor had instructed him on 27.01.1986 itself to engage a lorry for the purpose of transporting cement; that he had fixed up the driver of the lorry bearing No. APH 914 on 27.01.1986 itself for transporting the cement at the rate of Rs.500/- towards hire charges; the petitioner knew, in advance, that levy cement would be transported to the work site on 28.01.1986; he had also admitted that he personally knew the owner of the lorry who was residing at Shyampet; and that his contention, that he was in no way connected, was without basis. The Tribunal held that, from the evidence on record, it was clear that the petitioner had pre-planned diversion of levy cement for sale in the open market instead of transporting it to the work site; the gate passes for delivery of 300 bags of cement were recovered from the petitioner on 21.08.1986, which were produced before the Joint Collector; the Joint Collector had observed that the petitioner, in connivance with the supervisor, had attempted to divert the levy cement for sale in the open market; Ex.M.3 statement made by the petitioner before the Inspector of Police, Vigilance clinchingly established his guilt; his contention that he was travelling as a passenger in the lorry could not be believed; and, therefore, the first respondent was justified in discharging the petitioner as Works Inspector. On the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal held that, since the petitioner became physically handicapped with effect from 05.05.1988 as his leg was amputated and he was having a Jaipur artificial leg, it would be appropriate if he was reinstated as Works Inspector on daily wage basis with continuity of service but without back wages. An award was passed directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner as NMR Work Inspector Grade-II with continuity of service and without back wages. Before this Court Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the findings of the Tribunal holding the petitioner guilty of diversion of levy cement of 200 bags was perverse, and the petitioner ought not to have been denied back wages for the period from the date of his discharge till he was directed to be reinstated as an NMR worker. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal nor would it re- appreciate the evidence on record to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal. It is not for this Court to substitute its views for that of the Tribunal, and it is only when there is an error apparent on the face of record would this Court interfere. In the case on hand the Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record and largely on the basis of the petitioner’s admission before the Joint Collector, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of diverting 200 bags of cement for sale in the open market. While such grave and serious acts of misconduct would have necessitated upholding the punishment of discharge from service imposed on him, the Tribunal has taken a lenient view as the petitioner had lost his leg, and has directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The findings of the Tribunal, with regards the petitioner’s involvement in such grave and serious acts of misconduct, do not suffer from perversity. The punishment, as substituted by the Tribunal, is extremely lenient and cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. Since it is stated that the Government has not chosen to challenge the award of the Tribunal, the only order which can be passed is to dismiss the Writ Petition without interfering with the award of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:25.11.2010 usd