The court emphasized the need for the Authority to consider whether the evidence let in the Disciplinary proceedings was believed and whether the Disciplinary Authority could have possibly taken the view based on the evidence on record.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relates to the order, passed by the 1st respondent herein, dated 13.03.2017, in AP.No.204 of 2014, quash the same.)

1. The second respondent herein is a Conductor. The charge levelled against him was that he had collected Rs.14/- (Rupees Fourteen only) from two passengers and had issued only one 7 Rupee ticket and thereby, misappropriated Rs.7/- (Rupees Seven only) from the said passenger.

2. Based on the levelled charges, an enquiry was conducted, in which, the Management had examined the Checking Inspector as a witness MW1. On the basis of the proven charges against the second respondent, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on 26.09.2014. On the same day, the Management had filed an application before the Authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking for approval of the order of dismissal. Through the impugned order, dated 13.03.2017, the application was rejected on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice and there was no prima facie case before the Disciplinary Authority, when the order of dismissal was passed. The rejection order is put under challenge by the Management in the present writ petition.

3. Mr.D.Sivaraman, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner Corporation, submitted that since the evidence of Checking Inspector in the enquiry was crucial evidence to substantiate the charges against the workman, such evidence was not taking into consideration by the Authority while the impugned order of rejection was passed. According to the learned counsel, the observation of the Authority that no independent witnesses were examined and consequently, holding that the workman was denied the opportunity to crossexamine the other independent witnesses and rejecting the same on the ground that there was no prima facie case before the Disciplinary Authority, cannot be substantiated. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited Vs. M.Chandrasekaran reported in (2016) 6 SCC 16.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., and another reported in (1978) 3 SCC 1, has established the scope for interference to an application under Section 33(2)(b) by the Authority under the Act and among such grounds of interference, the Authority is entitled to reject an application seeking for approval on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as well as on the ground that there was no prima facie material available before the Disciplinary Authority while the order of rejection was passed. As such, he would submit that there is no infirmity in the order of the authority and therefore, the writ petition requires to be dismissed.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel.

6. The decision rendered by the learned two Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court in Lalla Ram's case (Supra) has laid down the circumstances, under which the powers of the Authority under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act can be exercised for interfering with an application seeking for approval. These guidelines have consistently been followed by the Authorities for more than 40 years. Such guidelines insofar as it relates to the powers of Authority to interfere with an order of dismissal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of prima facie case, have been reiterated in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd., Vs. G.Thirugnanasambandam reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241.

7. The decision in Cholan Roadways Ltd.,'s case (Supra) was followed by the Three Judges of the Honourable Supr