Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings, and the imposition of dismissal as a penalty can be upheld as proportionate with the gravity of the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.178 of 2011 and quash its Award dated 31.08.2017.

1. The Award dated 31.08.2017 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.178 of 2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The Management of C.P.Aquaculture (India) Private Limited is the writ petitioner. The 2nd respondent workman joined in the writ petitioner company in March 2000. On 10.06.2004, copper cable wire length of 19 metres and weighing 54 kgs, values approximately at Rs.48,000 went missing from the factory premises. The copper wire was imported from Indonesia. A complaint was made before the Sholavaram Police Station on 12.06.2004. It would appear that on 12.06.2004, the Inspector of Police informed the petitioner that they had arrested 3 persons found in possession of copper wire and the 2nd respondent was one among them. Therefore, the officials of the petitioner company went to the Police Station and identified the materials seized by the Police that it belonged to the Company. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was remanded to judicial custody. The 2nd respondent was involved in connection of theft and dishonesty in connection with company's property. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued on 19.06.2004. The 2nd respondent workman submitted his reply, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the reply, one Mr.S.Soundararajan, a retired District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, its Assistant Section Manager and Administrative Officer were examined in proof of the charges and 6 exhibits were marked. The 2nd respondent did not examine any witness. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 01.10.2004, holding that the charges against the 2nd respondent are proved. Based on the proved charges, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service in order dated 11.12.2004. The criminal case registered against the 2nd respondent was ended with an order of acquittal on 12.08.2005. Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.178 of 2011 before the 1st respondent.

3. The preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry was taken for consideration and the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was conducted in compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice and in a just and proper manner. Thereafter, the adjudication was proceeded with. However, the finding of the Labour Court states that the enquiry was conducted without following the Principles of Natural Justice in the Award.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that such a finding is contrary to the findings taken in the preliminary issue and therefore, the said finding is perverse and untenable. When the Labour Court elaborately considered the fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and concluded that the enquiry was conducted in a just and proper manner. There is no occasion for the Labour Court to reverse the findings in the final Award, stating that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in consonance with the Principles of Natural Justice. Such a finding is not only perverse and shown the non-application of mind on the part of the Labour Court in verifying the earlier decision taken regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner solicited the attention of this Court that the Labour Court proceeded only on the footing that the 2nd respondent was acquitted in the criminal case. Thus, such a reason made in support of the Award is untenable.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent disputed the contentions of the writ petitioner by stating that the criminal case was registered at the instance of the writ petitioner company and the evidences were examined and based on