IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17/03/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN W.P. NO. 19576 OF 1998 AND W.M.P. NO. 15561 OF 1999 K. Bakthavatchalam .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Management of I.C.F. rep. by General Manager I.C.F., Chennai 38. 2. The Industrial Tribunal T.N., Chennai 104. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioners : Mr. G.Justin For Respondents : Mr. V.Radhakrishnan for R1 :ORDER 1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.5.9 8 made in I.D. No.72/93 on the file of the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other benefits. 2. The above writ petition, which is at the stage of notice of motion, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel on either side. Heard Mr.G.Justin, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. The writ petitioner was appointed as sanitary cleaner by appointment order dated 8.10.1970 on his being selected to the said post. The petitioner claims that his appointing authority is the Deputy Chief Controlling Authority, Integral Coach Factory. The petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 19.4.84. The charges framed against the petitioner are :- "That the said Shri K. Bakthavatchalam, Khalasi, Emp.No.60890 at the time of his appointment in ICF in September, 1979 produced a false " Record Sheet" indicating that he has studied in Dt. Bd Elementary School, Odappai, whereas he has not studied in that school or any other school. Shri K.Bakthavatsalam has also falsely stated that he has studied upto 5th standard from 15.7.54 to 10.6.59. Shri K.Bakthavatsalam by his above acts misrepresented the material facts to the Administration and failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant thereby violating Rules 3.1(i) and 3.1(ii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966." 4. As the petitioner denied the charges, domestic enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry, afforded opportunity to either side and permitted the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses. According to the petitioner, the enquiry officer did not follow the procedure prescribed for conducting the enquiry. It is stated by the petitioner that the enquiry officer solely relied upon the statement recorded by the vigilance officer. The enquiry officer reported a finding that the petitioner is guilty of charges. The District Controller of Stores (Shell Depot), by the proceedings dated 7.1.85, imposed the penalty of removal from service with effect from 10.1.85 by proceedings dated 7.1.85. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review, which was also rejected on 2.6.86. 5. As conciliation proceedings failed, the Central Government referred the dispute to the 2nd respondent, Industrial Tribunal, and the dispute was taken on file as I.D. No.72/93. The petitioner filed a claim petition to which the respondents filed their detailed objections. 6. Before the industrial tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-7, while the respondent marked Ex.M-1 dated 8.10.79. The Industrial Tribunal framed the following points for its consideration :- "Whether the management of Integral Coach Factory, Madras is justified in removing Shri K.Bakthavatsalam from service w.e.f. 10.1.85. If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?" 7. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the charges have been substantiated and held that the writ petitioner has produced a false certificate. The Industrial Tribunal also held that the order of removal has been passed by the appointing authority and negatived the contention that the order of removal has been passed by an authority, who is incompetent or below the rank of the appointing authority. The Industrial Tribunal by award dated 26.5.98 dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 8. Mr.Justin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took the Court through the award of the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal as well as the typed set of papers filed by him and contended that the domestic enquiry is vitiated, in that under threat and coercion, admission has been elicited from the petitioner and the domestic enquiry is vitiated and in that no list of witness has been enclosed nor the list of documents have been set out in the charge memo. It is also contended by Mr.Justin that the order of removal has been passed by an authority inferior to that of the appointing authority and the findings of the Industrial Tribunal in this respect is vitiated by illegalities and misdirections. 9. Per contra, Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that no interference is called for with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The enquiry was fair and in the domestic enquiry sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, the domestic enquiry officer has recorded the evidence before whom the petitioner admitted the charges. That apart, the evidence has been recorded by the management to establish that the petitioner has produced false record sheet. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent also contended that the order of appointment having been passed by the Welfare Officer/Shell Depot of the Integral Coach Factory, the order of removal has been passed by the District Controller of Stores (Shell Depot), who is superior to the Welfare Officer, is well competent to impose the penalty of removal. The learned counsel also contended that even according to the rules there is delegation, which confers power on the Welfare Officer to appoint on the Assistant Officer to impose the punishment of removal or dismissal from service. 10. The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are :- "i) Whether the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the charges have been established is liable to be interfered ? ii) Whether the enquiry conducted is vitiated by coercion, threat or intimidation ? iii) Whether the order of removal has been passed by an authority who is not competent and who is not the appointing authority ?" 11. After framing of the charges, a charge sheet is set out under Article-1, while statement of imputation is Annexure-II, which contains details of imputation and there was no doubt in the mind of the petitioner, while he was facing the domestic enquiry. In Annexure-III, the list of documents have also been set out. In Annexure-IV, in the portion meant for list of witnesses, it has been set out as NIL. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer. As the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the charges, the enquiry officer elicited as to whether the petitioner is aware and understood the charges and as to what is his stand or explanation. The following are the questions, which were put to the petitioner and the answers elicited :- "Q.5 Please produce your photo Identity badge. A. I am herewith producing my Entry Permit for your verification as I do not have photo badge with me. The identity of the employee is verified from the Entry Permit with the specimen signature available in that. The permit is returned to the employee. Q.6 What is your father's name? A. My father's name is Kesavalu Naidu. Q.7 Are you aware of the charge levelled against you in the Charge Memorandum No.PB/F/DAR/60890/OUA dated 19.4.1984 a copy of which is given to you now? A. Yes. I am aware of the charge. Q.8 Do you accept the charge? A. Yes. I accept the charge. Q.9 Did you study in any school and if so where? A. I did not study in any school. Q.10 How did you get the record sheet produced by you at the time of your appointment ? A. For getting an employment, I approached the said school and got it. Q.11 You have confessed before vigilance that you got the certificate through your uncle Shri Kannan. What do you say for this? A. I was brought up by my uncle Shri Kannappa Naidu and with his assistance I was able to get the certificate. Q.12 Was there any force given by the vigilance while recording your statement? A. I gave the statement voluntarily." 12. The enquiry officer is not the vigilance officer, but he is a District Store Keeper Grade-I, employed in the Integral Coach Factory. The enquiry officer reported that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him, while stating that he did not attend any school. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges based upon not only documentary evidence, but also the admission of the delinquent. At the time of holding domestic enquiry, it is not as if anyone else, much less, the vigilance officer was present to threaten the petitioner. The enquiry officer reported a finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. Accepting the enquiry officer's findings, the penalty of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority and it has been confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority as well. All the three authorities found the petitioner guilty of the charges. 13. Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was contended that the enquiry was not proper and he was cross-examined in an illegal manner. Nowhere in the claim statement it has been stated that the petitioner was threatened and he was made to admit the charges, nor before the appellate and revisional authority such a stand has been taken. The contention of Mr.Justin that the petitioner was threatened and confession was extracted is without any basis as no such case has been pleaded before the Labour Court, much less before the appellate and revisional authority. What has been stated in the claim petition being that the admission was obtained by false hopes of giving a lessor punishment This is rather inconsistent with the present contention. There is no basis at all to hold that enquiry is vitiated by threat, coercion or intimidation as contended. 14. The contention that the enquiry officer's finding is perverse also cannot be sustained as it is born out of frustration. As no Presenting Officer was appointed, it is natural for the enquiry officer to put the questions, which has been recorded fairly and the petitioner has also signed the domestic enquiry proceedings. At no point of time, the petitioner had made any complaint about the enquiry officer nor it has been suggested that the petitioner was threatened. But on the other hand, the petitioner has admitted that he is guilty of the charge in his very answer. There is no material at all to hold that he was forced by anyone nor false hopes were given by anyone. The enquiry has been fair and every opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has admitted the very charges and after having admitted, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he made the admission on the basis of certain false hopes given to him. There is no necessity for any of the respondents to give false hopes. The educational certificates produced by the petitioner are false and fabricated documents and, therefore, he cannot contend that he has studied or that the certificates produced by him are not false documents. 15. On the facts of the case it is clear that the charges have been established as has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. Before the industrial tribunal also the petitioner has admitted during cross examination that he has admitted during enquiry that through his Uncle he got a school certificate for the purpose of getting a job. W-4 is the enquiry proceedings, which the petitioner has marked before the industrial tribunal and W-5 is the enquiry officer's findings. Nowhere the alleged statement of the petitioner recorded by the vigilance officer has been relied upon nor the findings are based on vigilance report. In fact, the petitioner has admitted that he has given a voluntary statement not only before the enquiry officer, but also the vigilance officer, while he was in the witness stand before the industrial tribunal. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has produced false certificates with respect to his qualifications. Hence, the charges have been established as has been found by the industrial tribunal. 16. Lastly it was contended that the punishment has not been imposed by the competent authority, but by an incompetent authority, who is his subordinate. In this respect, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the orders of the Welfare Officer/Shell on 8.10.79 appointing the petitioner. The office order appointing the petitioner reads thus :- "The undermentioned candidates, who have been selected for appointment to the post of sanitary cleaners and appointed as sanitary cleaner on pay of Rs.196-232 (RS) per month with effect from 26.9.79." This is the appointment order. The appointment order also states that it is purely on a temporary basis. 17. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Justin relied upon the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer dated 19.5 .78 and 18.8.78 whereby the petitioner was selected by the ICF administration for appointment to the post and which offer of appointment, the petitioner accepted. Pages 1 to 4 of the typed set of papers merely shows that the petitioner has been selected and he has been directed to report for personal interview with the necessary certificates on the date and time fixed. Thereafter, offer of appointment as temporary sanitary cleaner was made, while intimating that he has been selected for appointment to the post. The said two correspondence are not orders of appointment, but the orders of appointment in this case has been issued by the Welfare Officer/Shell in the General Manager's office, Personnel Branch/Shell. The appointing authority in this case is factually the Welfare Officer. The order of removal has been passed by the District Controller of Stores (Shell Depot), who is superior to the Welfare Officer. Therefore, factually it is clear that the petitioner has not been removed from service by an officer, who is subordinate to the appointing authority, but in fact the punishment of removal has been imposed by the District Controller of Stores, superior to the appointing authority. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the Welfare Officer is the competent authority to appoint Class-D post and also relied upon the schedule of powers conferred by the competent authority, on Assistant Officers, namely, Welfare Officer. Therefore, it is the Welfare Officer, even according to the rules, who is the appointing authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any material or rule or other material to sustain his contention. 19. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that there are no merits in the above writ petition and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 20. This Court sitting under Article 226 will not at all be justified in reappreciating the matter. In AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAYANTIBHAI PATEL reported in 1997 (6) SCC 650, the Apex Court held thus :- "It is true that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot convert itself into a court of appeal and assess the sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the competent courts or the tribunals, but this, however, does not debar the High Court from its power to enquire whether there is any evidence in support of a finding recorded by the inferior court or tribunal. It is well established that there is a difference between a finding based on sufficiency or adequacy of evidence and a finding based on no evidence." In this case, before the Industrial Tribunal sufficient and adequate materials were placed and on that basis only it has recorded a cogent finding and no interference is called for. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Industrial Tribunal nor there is any omission on its part nor it could be held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are perverse. This Court is not exercising appellate powers as against the orders of the Industrial Tribunal and it only exercise powers of judicial review under Article 226. In the circumstances, all the points are answered against the writ petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 22. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, but without costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Index : Yes Internet : Yes GLN To 1. The General Manager Integral Coach Factory Chennai 600 038. 2. The Industrial Tribunal T.N., Chennai 600 104. 