Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, and courts will not re-evaluate evidence unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported.

ORDER :

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No.41/2010, confirming the punishment of removal from service along with superannuation benefits imposed on the workman, the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the workman by the Regional Secretary to the Workers Organisation.

2. One Natarajan was appointed as clerical staff in the respondent bank for over a period of 23 years. While working as single window operator at the Dr.Nanjappa Road Branch, Coimbatore during the period from 29.06.2005 to 16.7.2005, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said workman on the allegation that he had unauthorisedly debited two account numbers on five occasions to the tune of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.29,000/- respectively. Upon issuance of show cause notice, the workman submitted his explanation dated 18.3.2006 by submitting that the debits were made only along with the necessary supporting instruments. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was initiated by appointment of enquiry officer. The workman objected to the appointment of enquiry officer submitting that the enquiry officer so appointed was involved in the decision making process during the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him. However, without considering the same, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and concluded the disciplinary proceedings in a biased manner and submitted his report holding the workman guilty. The workman was issued with a second notice along with the enquiry report to which explanation was submitted by the workman. However, not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the workman was imposed with punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the imposition of punishment, the workman raised an industrial dispute to which the respondent filed a reply. As the conciliation proceedings did not turn out successful, report was filed by the authority, whereupon, the industrial dispute was referred to the Tribunal in I.D.No.41/2010.

4. Upon reference of the dispute, the Tribunal took up the reference and on behalf of the workman and the workman examined himself as W.W.2 in addition to the petitioner herein being examined as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-25. On behalf of the bank, while no witnesses were examined, however, Exs.M-1 to M-44 were marked. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concurred with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and also upheld the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service along with superannuation benefits by holding that the leniency clearly reveals that there is no disproportionality in the punishment and dismissed the dispute. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the workman has preferred the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and against the probabilities and weight of evidence and that the said award is contrary to the documentary and oral evidence available on record.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the withdrawal cheque leaves produced by the workman had not been properly taken into consideration