This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.V.04/1573/2012 and also the consequential order of the 1st respondent dated 02.12.2013 passed in Se.Mu.No.1883/2013/u, in and by which, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner also sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service to the post of supervisor.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 23.08.2013, when he had gone to the Bank for depositing the amount and also to attend the marriage of another Salesman, a Flying Squad inspected the shop and found out certain irregularities.
3. It is seen that after a detailed enquiry, the disciplinary authority has passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service and thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed on 02.12.2013. The petitioner is a workman within the meaning of
Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even though the petitioner has been appointed as Supervisor, he has no independent powers and he is a Workman under
Section 2-A of I.D.Act, as could be seen from the appointment order dated 02.01.2014.
4. It is also seen that proper enquiry has been conducted on the charges levelled against him, pursuant to which, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner also stated that the payment of subsistence allowance has been deposited in his account. Since there is a disputed question of fact involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ petition is not an alternative remedy and this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, even though there are some discrepancies in the evidence. In the case of State of Andhra P radesh v. S.Sree Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Honble Apex Court had held as under:
?The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts, and if there be some legally admissible evidence, on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a Writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution, if the enquiry has otherwise been properly held. Here, in the instant case, no document which has been created behind the back of the applicant, has been relied upon by the Enquiry officer, and all the documents relied upon were the creation of the applicant himself, under his own handwriting. This aspect has been appreciated by the Honble High Court also while setting aside his acquittal by the trial Court. Therefore, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the findings of the Enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, are not based on legally admissible evidence, and that no reasonable person could have arrived at on those findings on the basis of the material available. It is not as if any deposition of a witness had been recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the delinquent public servant, who is the applicant before us, or a copy thereof has not been given to him or a witness has been produced, and an opportunity has not been given to him, to cross examine that witness.
5. In yet another judgment, a Three-Judges Bench of the Honble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 484 has been pleased to hold as follows:-
?12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.?
6. Moreover, perusal of paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit would go to show that the irregularities found out were admitted by the employees themselves. Therefore, finding no merits in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
1. The Senior Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Trichy.
2. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Pudukottai..