Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to examining procedural fairness, not re-evaluating evidence; proportionality of punishment must be considered within the context of the employee's service record and nature of the misconduct.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the award of the 2^nd respondent in ID No.22/2008 in and by which the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the 1^st respondent was upheld, the present petition is directed against the said award.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the 1^st respondent as Security Guard on 11.5.1983 and was thereafter awarded promotions and during the year 1999, the petitioner was functioning as Assistant Officer (Security). According to the petitioner, he has put in an unblemished service of 20 years. While so, on 12.12.2001, a show cause was issued making certain allegations against him in terms of the Certified Standing Orders. Upon receipt of explanation and not being satisfied, enquiry was ordered and in the enquiry, the enquiry found him guilty of the charges. After providing a copy of the report, explanation was sought for, which was submitted and not being satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide final order on 25.3.2003.

3. An approval petition was filed before the National Industrial Tribunal on 25.3.2003 due to certain disputes relating to service conditions of Airline employees and the approval petition was pending for three years and, thereafter, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 17.4.2007, the approval petition was disposed of in terms of the said order while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the basis of the liberty granted, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which fell for adjudication before the Tribunal.

4. The allegations levelled by the 1^st respondent in the enquiry was that on the date in question, a passenger bound for flight, SQ-409, was apprehended by the Intelligence Unit of the Customs for carrying contraband goods in the form of 440 Star Tortoises. Since the petitioner was also on duty along with others, a memo dated 16.7.2001 was issued on suspicion that the said baggage was cleared by the petitioner. Inspite of denial of the petitioner, enquiry was conducted leading to the filing of the report and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioner.

5. The approval petition filed was finally disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an industrial dispute whereupon, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute, which was referred to the 1^st respondent.

6. Before the Tribunal, while no ocular witnesses were examined on either side, on the side of the petitioner, Exs.W-1 to W-54 were marked and on the side of the 1st respondent herein, Exs.M-1 to M-34 were marked. The Tribunal, on the basis of the documentary evidence and the law relating to interference of the judicial forum in cases pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, dismissed the dispute holding that no interference is warranted with the punishment imposed on the delinquent/petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the whole sequence of events leading to the seizure of the contraband bristles with very many contradictions and discrepancies and the presence of the delinquent