JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-A charge-sheet issued to respondent No. 1 reads that at about 11 a.m. on June 23, 1973 Smt. Parul Rani Chowdhury, a customer of the appellant-Bank, handed over to respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3,002.40p along with two draft applications each for Rs. 1,001.20p; that even though respondent No. 1 received excess amount of Rs. 1,000/- over Rs. 2,002,40p, he neither refunded the same nor asked the customer as to the manner in which the said amount was to be deposited either by depositing the same in the savings bank account or deposit the same in the Sunday deposits account; that instead he retained the said money with him with intention of misappropriating the same; that thereafter Smt. Parul Rani Chowdhury returned at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day and demanded the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- handed over to respondent No. 1 in excess, which he flatly denied; that on a report being made to the Branch Manager by Smt. Parul Rani Chowdhury he inquired about the matter; that when a preliminary search failed to trace the amount and a physical search of all the employees was being conducted, respondent No. 1 threw away the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- on the floor that thereby he retained the amount with him with a criminal intent to misappropriate the same and thus lowered the image of the appellant-Bank and thus acted in a manner highly prejudicial to the interest of the appellant-Bank. Respondent No. 1 replied to the said charge-sheet by stating that on a memorandum being issued to him directly involving him in an alleged misappropriation of the said sum on June 23, 1973 he was compelled to sign a statement which he was not allowed to go through even. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension. He alleged that he is a victim of serious conspiracy specially while after his recent promotion from Messenger to Cashier he was looking forward for a bright future and he denied all the charges levelled against him and he claimed to be innocent.

2. A domestic enquiry was held against him and three witnesses were examined. Respondent No. 1 did not adduce any evidence nor he examined himself. On the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry by a report made finding him guilty of charges against him, on January 27, 1976 respondent No. 1 was asked to show cause as to why an appropriate punishment should not be imposed upon him and he was heard in the matter. The Regional Manager thereafter communicated to the respondent No. 1 the decision to dismiss him. On dismissal being made an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Presiding Officer held that the domestic enquiry conducted was just, fair and proper. However, on examination of the material on record the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the finding of guilt against the first respondent was not just on the evidence on record and, therefore, he set aside the same. This award was challenged by a writ petition which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and the award given by the Presiding Officer was quashed. On a further appeal the Division Bench of the High Court held that the learned single Judge could not have interfered with the award made by the Tribunal and set aside the same and restored the award made by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. The Tribunal having held that the domestic enquiry was fair and valid the scope of interference was very limited. This Court in Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management & Ors.1, stated the law as follows :-

"(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the employer if justified.

(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with