JUDGMENT

(Delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.8825 of 2012 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.02.2021.

2.The second respondent in the writ petition was employed as a Conductor in the petitioner Transport Corporation. According to the management, when the second respondent was working as a driver on 20.01.2005, he had received a sum of Rs.10/- from the passenger and gave a ticket for Rs.3.50 instead of Rs.8.50 and misappropriated a sum of Rs.5/-.

On the said allegation, a charged memo was issued to the second respondent on 27.01.2005 and he was placed under suspension. A domestic enquiry was conducted, in which, he was found guilty. A second show cause notice was issued to the second respondent on 15.04.2005 and the second respondent also submitted a reply. Thereafter, the petitioner management dismissed the second respondent from service by an order dated 11.05.2005.

3.In order to comply with the provision of Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Dispute Act, an application to approve the dismissal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in Approval Petition No. 69 of 2005. In the said application, the Statutory Authority passed an order on 31.07.2007 holding that the Enquiry Officer has not considered all the legal evidence before him. The Statutory Authority further held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The management filed a petition requesting the Statutory Authority that if any defect is found in the enquiry proceedings, they may be permitted to let in evidence. Based upon the said application, the management was permitted by the Statutory Authority to let in evidence to prove the charges.

4.Before the Statutory Authority, the management chose to examine the enquiry officer who conducted the domestic enquiry. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the management as well as by the workman. The Statutory Authority by its order dated 23.12.2010 arrived at a finding that except the Enquiry Officer, no one was examined before him and the evidence of enquiry officer is hearsay evidence. The Statutory Authority further found that the main reason for reopening of the case was due to defects found in the domestic enquiry. But, the Enquiry Officer himself has entered into the box and he has let in evidence attempting to prove the misconduct of the workman. The Statutory Authority further found that the passenger who is said to have travelled and has not been examined. The Statutory Authority further found that it is doubtful, whether the passenger himself has sought for a ticket for Rs.3.50 instead of Rs.8.50 or not. Based upon the said findings, the Statutory Authority held that no prima facie case is made for the alleged misconduct against the workman and rejected the approval sought for by the management.

5.The management challenged the said order of the Statutory Authority in W.P(MD).No8825 of 2012.

6.The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both the parties arrived at a finding that the passenger who has lost the money has not been examined and his statement was also not recorded by the Checking Inspector. In the view of the above said facts, the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the Statutory Authority has rightly rejected the request for approval of the dismissal of the workman. The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the management challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court.

7.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant contended that in view of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not necessary to examine the passenger who is connected with the incident of misappropriation done by the workman. He further cited various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts to impress upon the Court that even if the misappropriation is for a small amount, the punishment of dismissal cannot