The management retains the right to present additional evidence if a domestic enquiry is deemed improper, underscoring the requirement for fairness in disciplinary proceedings.

GUDGMENT :

A. ABHISHEK REDDY,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

“…...for quashing the impugned order, dated 28.08.2024, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 16(c) of 2023, inasmuch as the learned Industrial Tribunal has relied on four perfunctory ‘findings’ to erroneously hold that a properly conducted domestic enquiry was vitiated in terms of its fairness, propriety, legality, and adherence to principles of natural justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the Industrial Tribunal Patna without appreciating the facts in a proper perspective has passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 whereby it was held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not done in a fair and proper manner. The Tribunal did not follow the well settled principles of law, while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the finding given by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse and against the record. That the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the authority concerned for passing orders afresh duly taking into consideration the materials available on record.

4. Learned counsel has raised the following points for consideration of this Court:-

(i) The finding of the Tribunal that the Enquiry Proceeding Report (EPR) has not been brought on record is contrary to the record. That there is ample evidence to show that the EPR is part and parcel of the record and the tribunal failed to see the same. The EPR was filed by the Workman himself along with the other documents filed by him and the same is at Sl. No. 10 of the list of documents.

(ii). That the complainant only reported about the incident which occurred at LHO without naming any person and the conclusion arrived by the Industrial Tribunal is without any legal basis. That not mentioning the name of the Workman cannot be a ground for dis-believing the complaint or doubting the enquiry when the enquiry done reveals that the Workman was involved in the occurrence.

(iii). The finding of the Tribunal that the incident occurred in the basement of the LHO and the name does not form part of the office is perverse and contrary to the Bihar Building Bye Laws.

(iv). The finding that the employee was not issued any show cause notice before action was taken is contrary to the procedure applicable to the petitioner Bank.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his case :

1. Shankar Charkravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd reported in AIR 1979 SC 1652.

2. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh reported in AIR 1972 SC 1031.

3. M.L. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 4668.

4. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs A.S. Raghavendra reported in 2024 (2) PLJR (SC) 297.

5. Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. Vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 729

6. Jitendra Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. and Ors. reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 277.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition and stated that the Industrial Tribunal has passed the order dated 28.08.2024 only on the preliminary point and given a finding with regard to the domestic enquiry conducted by the authority. That nothing prevents the man