Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, not evaluating the merits of evidence. The disciplinary authority's conclusions, supported by some evidence, are not to be overturned unless they are arbitrary or baseless.

ORDER :

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 brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as under:-

The petitioner was initially appointed on 22.9.1982 as Clerk-cum-Shroff initially at Chakkarapalli and was later transferred and at the material point of time, the petitioner was working in Manavalanallur Branch. While working in the said branch, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 25.10.1985 alleging that he had fraudulently withdrawn certain amounts from SB Account No.3623 and that he had prepared excess interest accrued vouchers to cover up the said withdrawals. Vide the aforesaid communication, the petitioner was suspended and to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied, enquiry was initiated in which the petitioner was held guilty of the charges and an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was passed vide order dated 7.3.1987. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal against the said dismissal on 15.4.1987, which was also dismissed prompting the petitioner to seek refugee u/s 2-A of the Industrial Disputes seeking the intervention of the Conciliation Authority, which also failed resulting in the dispute being referred for adjudication by the Tribunal.

3. 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-01 to W-07. On the side of the 1^st respondent, two witnesses were examined as M.W.s 1 and 2 and Exs.M-01 to M-47 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 dismissal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Learned senior 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.

5. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that though initially one other witness was shown in the list of witness to depose on behalf of the 1^st respondent, however, curiously, the said witness was not examined and though the said non-examination, as per the Tribunal, would have been better, however, the Tribunal erred in not drawing adverse inference against the 1^st respondent and had held that the said non-examination would not disprove the charges.

6. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the materials placed before the Tribunal were not sufficient to prove the charges and the forgery alleged against the petitioner and the finding of the Tribunal that not placing the aforesaid documents in no way destroys the case of the 1^st respondent is wholly erroneous. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner was only a ledger keeper and the entries were made by the cashier, which aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal.