Dinesh Singh vs Air India & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 197 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    LPA 1362/2007
     DINESH SINGH             ..... Appellant
                   Through Mr. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate.
                           Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.

                 versus


     AIR INDIA & ORS.                  ..... Respondent
                    Through       Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate with
                                  Ms. Ratna and Ms. Shreya,
                                  Advocates.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
            ORDER

% 20.01.2009

1. The appellant was working as a Junior Operator with the

Respondent No.1 Corporation. On 7th October, 1989 he was on

tractor duty in the make up area and was to attend the Saudi Air

Flight which was schedule to arrived at 6.00 P.M.

2. One Mr. M.L. Kumar, Apron Supervisor of the same flight was

also on duty. The appellant's tractor dashed against a chain of

container dollies, which were parked there. Mr. M.L. Kumar

reprimanded the appellant for his careless driving and the appellant

entered into heated arguments with him. Subsequently, appellant

entered into office of the Shift Clerk and misbehaved with Mr. M.L.

Kumar. He was suspected to be under the influence of alcohol. The

respondent Corporation served a charge sheet on the appellant and an Enquiry Committee was appointed to enquire into the incident and

give its report. The Enquiry Committee after considering the material

placed on record came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty

of charge of leaving the appointed place of work during working hours

without permission as well as of acts subversive of discipline as

mentioned in the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority after

considering the enquiry report and the past conduct of the appellant

imposed a penalty of dismissal from service.

3. An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 was made to the National Industrial Tribunal for approval of

the action of the dismissal. The Tribunal considered the entire

proceedings of Enquiry Committee and came to the conclusion that

the enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural

justice and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the

charges proved against the delinquent and allowed the said

application under. As against this order of Tribunal, the appellant

preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge vide order under appeal.

4. The scope of the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited. While granting approval or

rejecting the application, the industrial adjudicator is only to examine the findings of the enquiry officer on the evidence adduced in the

domestic enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case was made

out on the charges leveled or if the findings are perverse and the

principal of natural justice have been complied with. The Industrial

adjudicator while granting approval does not act as a court of appeal,

re-appreciating the evidence for itself. Nor the industrial adjudicator

can go into the question whether the evidence was sufficient or not

and whether the witnesses were rightly believed or disbelieved. The

credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency of evidence etc. are the

areas in which neither the Tribunal nor the Writ Court can enter into.

4. Adequate opportunity was given to the appellant by the Enquiry

Committee and it is not the case of the appellant that there was

violation of Principles of natural justice. The only contention raised

before us by the counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of Mr.

M.L. Kumar should not have been believed because he was a

interested witness. It is not a case of 'no evidence' or lack of

evidence. Mr. M.L. Kumar, who was the complainant, has supported

the version given in the charge sheet. The evidence was accepted by

the Committee and it is held by the Committee that the charges

against the appellant stand established.

5. Considering the nature of charge and proof against the appellant, the penalty of removal from service cannot be regarded as

inappropriate.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JANUARY 20, 2009 NA