In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court will not interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority or the penalty imposed unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence or the punishment was impermissible.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal is directed against judgment and order dated February 26, 1990 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the learned Judge allowed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) and quashed the order of suspension, the chargesheet, the enquiry report, the order of dismissal and all subsequent orders. The petitioner was, also, allowed to resume his duties forthwith and was allowed 50% of the salary, which he would have drawn had he be in service.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner was a clerk working with the respondent No. 1. The writ petitioner was, also, the General Secretary of the Workers' Union. The erstwhile management of the company could not pay gratuities available to the retired employees thereby compelling them to initiate proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. That directions were passed for payment of gratuities to the retired employees of the company by the appropriate authority and the amounts were sought to be recovered by initiation of certificate proceedings. One such retired employee of the company was Chhanderdeo Singh. It has been alleged that the writ petitioner obtained authorities from the said Chhanderdeo Singh to receive payment of gratuity and, in fact, drawn the gratuity amount from the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner by a cheque dated March 16, 1982. On December 2, 1985 the said Chhanderdeo Singh filed a written complaint to the Chief Executive Officer of the company regarding non-receipt of his gratuity money. The company by a letter dated January 14/15, 1986 enquired from the Certificate Officer, Howrah regarding the full facts concerning the non-payment of gratuity money of Shri Chhanderdeo Singh. The Personnel Manager of the company, also, addressed a letter to the Deputy labour Commissioner regarding the same subject. The Deputy Labour Commissioner informed the company that the gratuity money concerning Chhanderdeo Singh has been withdrawn by the writ petitioner on March 26, 1982 by a cheque dated March 16, 1982, but the writ petitioner sought to refund the amount by a bank draft purchased from the Union Bank of India, High Court Branch favouring the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Another retired employee of the company, Jhumak Singh, was, also, entitled to gratuity money. The writ petitioner was, also, obtained authorisation from his and received a sum of Rs. 8115. 31 (Rupees eight thousand one hundred fifteen and paise thirty one) only by three cheques dated March 10, 1981, April 18, 1981 and July 8, 1981. On February 5, 1986 the said Jhumak Singh made a complaint to the Personnel Manager of the company alleging that he has not received any gratuity money. The writ petitioner alleged that he has paid the amount to the said Jhumak Singh, but he could produce no document to establish payment of money to Jhumak Singh. On December 19, 1995 three employees of the company, namely, B. Ohja, Chandra Kishor Jha and Bireswar Mondal demanded the money from the writ petitioner, which was due and payable to Chhanderdeo Singh, but the writ petitioner refused to pay and severely assaulted B. Ojha and threatened other two employees with dire consequences. The three employees lodged complaints to the Personnel Manager of the company. On February 20, 1986 the writ petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry and on March, 3, 1986 a chargesheet was issued to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet, but the company found his explanations unsatisfactory and proposed to hold an enquiry concerning the charges. Mr. N. K. Mukherjee, Industrial Relations Consultant, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report wherein the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and established and that the charges established amounted to major misdemeanor. The Chief Execut