Judicial review in disciplinary matters does not permit reappreciation of evidence; findings can only be overturned if they are perverse or based on no evidence.

JUDGMENT :

C.Kumarappan, J.

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.15911 to 15914 of 2014 dated 26.08.2019.

This is a case of manipulation of records and misappropriation of Government grant.

2. All the appellants, while serving as Sales Attendant/Assistant under the second respondent/Society, were levelled with charges that they had sold domestic gas cylinders to 428 fictitious consumers and had unjustly enriched themselves. Based on these charges, a domestic inquiry was conducted, wherein the charges against them were held as 'proved'. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal on 01.03.2011. When these workmen had challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.Nos.107 to 110 of 2011, all the Industrial Disputes came to be dismissed by Awards dated 27.03.2014. The challenge made to the Awards of dismissal before the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.Nos.15911 to 15914 of 2014 was also dismissed on 26.08.2019, which common order is assailed in the present Writ Appeals.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the author of the material documents which was relied upon by the Labour Court, was not examined. However, the learned Single Judge had touched upon the issues and has rightly found that the standard of proof before the Labour Court is only preponderance of probability, and that the documents produced before the Labour Court was sufficient to reach on such a conclusion.

4. It is a settled principle of law that under the power of judicial review, the factual finding given by the Labour Court, cannot be gone into, unless the same is perverse.

5. Before we further delve into the above aspect, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Abrar Ali' reported in '(2017) 4 SCC 507', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in categorical term has enunciated that the High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts, which tantamounts to re-appreciation of evidence. It was further held that the re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also relied upon the judgment of ['State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya and Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran' reported in '(2015) 2 SCC 610']. The relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 read as under:-

“14. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721], this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 587, para 7)

“7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1