The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be supported by valid evidence, and conclusions drawn must be sustainable based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent Labour Court relating to its award in I.D.No.192/2005 dated 30.04.2010 and those of the 2nd respondent relating to his order No.CCW/AIR&TV/NFDC/Coop Soc dated 16.09.2003 and quash both the orders and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, seniority, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.)

1. The writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the order of the Labour Court/ 1st respondent relating to its award in I.D.No.192 of 2005 dated 30.04.2010, confirming the order of dismissal by the 2nd respondent vide order No.CCW/AIR&TV/NFDC/Coop Soc dated 16.09.2003 and quash both the orders and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, seniority, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The order of the Labour Court is challenged on merits as well as on the premise that the disciplinary proceeding suffered from vice of bias and thus the entire proceedings commencing with enquiry and culminating with the order of dismissal and its affirmation by the Labour Court, is non-est and bad in law.

3. Brief facts:

3.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 01.11.1990 in the 2nd respondent/ Society. On 21.01.2002, the petitioner was placed under suspension alleging enquiry into certain charges. Thereafter, on 14.02.2002, the petitioner was issued with the charge memo. A show cause notice was then issued on 20.03.2002 proposing termination of the petitioner on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry report. The same was challenged by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.11540 of 2002 before this Court. This Court was pleased to quash the said show cause notice vide order dated 30.01.2003 in W.P.No.11540 of 2002 and directed that fresh enquiry be conducted.

3.2. Pursuant thereto, fresh charges came to be framed on 19.02.2003 and a practising Advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Three charges were framed against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 19.02.2003. For the sake of brevity, the same is summarised below:

a. Charge 1:

That the petitioner had reported late for duty on 18.12.2001, on which day an audit was to be conducted, though the petitioner was allegedly informed to report to duty early i.e., at 9.30 a.m. that day. Normally, duty commences only at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner was however late by more than 2 hours, the delay adversely impacted preparation of the audit report. That the petitioner had reported late for duty without obtaining prior permission.

b. Charge 2:

That the petitioner worked for Videsh Sanchar Nigam Staff Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "VSNL") since April 2001 as part-time clerk, by leaving the 2nd respondent/ Society premises after the President/ Vice-President had left. The dual employment would constitute misconduct in terms of Regulation 18(7) and 21(24) of the Service Regulations of the 2nd Respondent Society.

c. Charge 3:

That the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from Mr.Chandiran, Member No.942 towards payment of M.T.Loan which was acknowledged by the petitioner vide receipt No.427. However, the petitioner is alleged to have made out another cash receipt for Rs.5,000/- vide receipt No.447 and had manipulated the original entry of Rs.10,000/- in Receipt No.427 and the day book and chitta books corresponding to receipt No.427 to show receipt of only Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-, which was the original entry, and had thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

4. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the charge memo vide letter dated 03.03.2003. However, the same was found to be not satisfactory by the respondents and thus a domestic enquiry was ordered into all the three charges containe