The court emphasized that the High Court should not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings and should not re-appreciate the evidence unless there is gross perversity.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent impugns the order dated 25th November, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6521/2015 whereby Appellant's writ petition impugning the award of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting reinstatement in service, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant was working with the Respondent-Bank as an Attender. He was posted at the extension counter of the Bank at DTC Wazirpur Depot Extension Counter. On 27th May, 2003, a shortage of Rs. 600/- was found in one packet of currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination, and further shortage of Rs. 700 in another packet, which the Appellant tried to cover up by mixing his own loose cash in the bundle. This led to issuance of a chargesheet dated 5th April, 2004 on .the counts of, inter alia, pilferage and destruction of evidence, followed by an enquiry which resulted in the report dated 19th October, 2004 holding the Petitioner guilty of gross misconduct. The said report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and punishment of dismissal of service was awarded to the Petitioner. This led to the petitioner raising an Industrial Dispute and the appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the preliminary issue as to whether enquiry conducted by the management was fair and just, was decided in favour of the claimant. It was held that the enquiry was violative of principles of natural justice and accordingly the Bank was given an opportunity to prove charge of misconduct against the workman before the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the Bank adduced evidence and produced witnesses to prove the charges, on consideration whereof, the Tribunal held that the award of punishment of dismissal from service, does not warrant any interference.

3. In this background, the Appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition impugning the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Single Judge examined the record and, concurring with the findings of the Industrial Tribunal, affirmed the penalty imposed.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, the counsel for the Appellant in the present appeal argues that the Appellant has been falsely framed, and that the enquiry was not impartial or independent. Further, the Appellant was not allowed to lead defense evidence which resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It is further urged that the senior bank officials, who were the designated Custodian and Joint Custodian, were responsible for keeping the cash packets and have the keys of the double lock, and should therefore be held liable if a shortage was found during verification of cash. The charges leveled against the Petitioner were urged to be baseless and unfounded. It was also pointed out that the Appellant had no prior history of any such misconduct in his long service period of twenty years.

5. We have perused the record and given due consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant.

6. The learned Single Judge, on a detailed scrutiny of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, has observed that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are in consonance with the law as well as the evidence adduced before it. Relevant part of the impugned judgment is extracted as follows:

"19. This Court is satisfied that the respondent has successfully proved the misconduct of the petitioner by examining five witnesses who are consistent in all respects. The testimony of all the witnesses of the petitioner is accepted as true. On the other hand, the testimony of the respondent and his witness does not pass the test of judicial belief. The statement of Subhash that the petitioner was beaten by Mr. Mittal and T.R. Rajgopal is false as the petitioner himself has not made such allegation against any of them. The whole case of the petitioner is base based on falsehood and is hereby rejected. Th