The court emphasized that the dismissal of an employee must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and in cases of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal.

ORDER

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 35 of 1989 dated 15th July, 2000. The Labour Court, Jamshedpur by the award has set aside the termination/dismissal of the respondent No. 2 from the service and ordered him to be reinstated with full back wages with continuity in service and other consequential benefits.

2. The facts of this case are that the respondent No. 2 was an employee of the petitioner and at the relevant time, he was working as Inspector of Audit Inspection Department. The allegation against him was that he absented from duty without leave or permission from 30.04.1986 to 16.06.1986. Subsequently, the petitioner found that the respondent No. 2 submitted a leave application dated 29.04.1986 for the period from 30.04.1986 to 03.05.1986 to the Finance Department (Wage section) and had drawn advance money against salary on submission of the said leave application. It is also alleged that the signatures of both the recommending and sanctioning authorities, in respect of the said leave application, were false. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 indulged in deceptive and corrupt practise by submitting a false application and subsequently drawing advance money against his salary based on the said false recommendation and sanction.

3. For the said misconduct of the respondent no. 2, a charge-sheet was issued against him under Order No. 24 of the Company''s Works Standing Order, which reads as:-

Order No. 24

Sub-Clause (xi) ".......... absence without permission, absence without leave....."

and

Sub-Clause (xv) "Deceptive or corrupt practices"

"You absented from duty without leave or permission from 30-4-83 to 16-6-86. Subsequently, it was found that you had submitted a leave application dated 29-4-86 for the period 30.4.86 to 3.5.86 to the Finance Department (Wage Section) and drawn advance money against salary on submitting of the said leave application. Subsequently, it was found that the signature of both recommending and sanctioning authorities were false.

You have thus indulged in deceptive and corrupt practise by submitting false leave application and subsequently drawing advance against salary from the Company based on the said false application."

4. In response to the said charge-sheet, the respondent No. 2 submitted his explanation, in which he took the plea that he submitted the leave application to his Foreman after getting the urgent information to proceed to his native place. Since, he wanted permission from the Finance Department; he was told by the Foreman that he (respondent No. 2) is in the habit of absenting. Hence, he cannot be permitted to meet with the higher boss. Hence, the Foreman took his leave application himself and brought and handed over the leave advance voucher to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 did not get the opportunity to see the leave application as to who has also signed the application and he thus denied the charges.

5. As the explanation submitted by the respondent No. 2 was found not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted and after the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officers holding the respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges levelled against him, the competent disciplinary authority on the consideration of the enquiry proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officers ordered dismissal of the respondent No. 2 from the services of the petitioner company.

6. The respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute and consequent upon the failure of the conciliation, Government of Bihar referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur which reads as follows:-

"Whether termination of service of Sri R. A. Pandey, Ticket no. 6408/09873/ 1, Workman of M/S Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company, Limited, Jamshedpur is proper and justified? If not, wheth