Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice and legality, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting the disciplinary authority's findings.

ORDER :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the 2^nd respondent/Industrial Tribunal, in I.D. No.28/1989, denying reinstatement and other attendant benefits to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order.

2. The petitioner was appointed as peon in Mannady Branch of the bank on 29.11.1984 and, thereafter, transferred to Valasarawakkam Branch during 2001. While working in the said branch, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by the 3^rd respondent on 16.7.2008 making three allegations that the petitioner was frequently unauthorisedly absent, instigating the customers to prefer complaint and was not heeding to the words of the supers and is disobeying the orders of the superior.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and not being satisfied, three charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed. After affording opportunity to submit oral and documentary evidence, the enquiry officer filed his report holding the charges proved against the petitioner. Further explanation was called for from the petitioner by furnishing the report of the enquiry officer on 13.11.2009 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.11.2009. However, not being satisfied with the explanation vide 2^nd show cause notice dated 19.12.2009, the disciplinary authority called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to the proposed punishment to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.12.2009. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of six months for charge No.1 and compulsory retirement for charge Nos.2 and 3.

4. Aggrieved by the said punishment imposed, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2^nd respondent, viz., the appellate authority on 27.01.2010, which was rejected by upholding the punishment vide order dated 13.08.2010. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in ID No.31/2012.

5. Upon reference of the dispute, the Tribunal took up the reference and on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-22. On the side of the 1^st respondent, while no oral evidence was adduced, Exs.M-1 to M-29 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 imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the request of the petitioner for grant of time was negatived by the enquiry officer, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the documents and list of witnesses were marked behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no assistance was provided to the petitioner and no adequate opportunity was granted to cross examine the witnesses and the petitioner’s request to examine the complainants was rejected by the enquiry officer and the depositions of the witnesses were also not provided to the delinquent. In fine, it is the submission of the learned counsel that there is glaring violations of principles of natural justice, which aspect, though placed before the Labour Court, was not properly considered by the Labour Court resulting in the confirmation of the order of punishment, which deserves interference at the hands of this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that the petitioner’s claim that he was not granted enough opportunities to cross examine the witnesses is wholly erroneous. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the enquiry proceedings were not challenged before the Tribunal and if really the grievance of no oppo