The Management of Tamil NaduState Transport Corporation,(Coimbatore Divn. I) Ltd v. 1.The Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal,Chennai.2.C.Rajendran

petitioner Management in accepting the same and dismissing therespondent workman is not sustainable, dismissed the approvalpetition filed by the petitioner Management.2. The brief facts for consideration are as follows:The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent wasemployed as its conductor and while he was on duty in Route No.S10between Udhayampalayam and Ondipudur, on 23.10.1997, the checkingofficials of the petitioner Corporation checked the bus at LakshmiMills Bus stop at about 17 hours and found that the secondrespondent had issued half-torn tickets to the passengers. Thechecking officials recovered the half-torn tickets from thepassengers and the other half of the torn-tickets were with theconductor. Hence, charges were framed against the secondrespondent under Section 14(d)(ab)of the Standing Orders of theCorporation. 2.1 It is also the case of the petitioner Corporation thatsome of the half torn tickets were issued with serial number andsome other tickets were issued without serial number and nearly 26tickets were involved in this irregularity and that the other half-torn tickets in six books were in possession of theconductor/second respondent. The passengers also revealed that theconductor had issued only half-torn tickets to them after receivingthe actual fare. By this irregularity, the second respondentmisappropriated a sum of Rs.60.50 for his own use. After framingof the charges, the petitioner Management issued show cause noticeon 06.11.1997, calling for explanation from the second respondentherein. He submitted his explanation, but the petitionerManagement found that it was not satisfactory and ordered fordomestic enquiry. During the domestic enquiry, he was givenopportunity to cross examine the departmental witnesses and wasalso permitted to produce his own witnesses. In the enquiry, thesecond respondent did not properly explain as to why he gave thehalf torn-tickets to the passengers and why half-torn tickets wereremaining in the ticket books.2.2 According to the petitioner Corporation, it has conductedthe domestic enquiry in a fair and proper manner duly observing theprinciples of natural justice. The second respondent alsoparticipated in the enquiry and examined his own witnesses. Afterdetailed examination, the Enquiry Officer held that the chargesframed against the delinquent employee were proved. The firstrespondent failed to note the past record of service of the secondrespondent, as he was punished 21 times for various acts ofmisconduct. Thereafter, on 21.01.1998, a second show cause noticewas issued, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service witheffect from 07.11.1997. The second respondent submitted hisexplanation and after finding that there is no exonerating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstance in the explanation submitted by the second respondentfor the second show cause notice, the petitioner had no otheroption except to pass a final order dismissing the secondrespondent from service, by order dated 07.04.1998. Immediatelyafter dismissal, in compliance of the provisions under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, one month salary of thesecond respondent's last drawn pay and a copy of the approvalpetition were given to the second respondent by the petitionerManagement. 2.3 The petitioner Corporation moved the Industrial Tribunalfor approval of the action taken by them in dismissing the secondrespondent from service. The main contention of the petitionerCorporation before the Industrial Tribunal was that when the secondrespondent was on duty in Route No.S10, the bus was checked by theChecking Inspector who found that many of the passengers werehaving only half-torn tickets which contained either the number orthe fare and because of this irregularity, the second respondentmisappropriated a sum of Rs.60.50 and thus caused loss to thepetitioner Corporation. The checking inspector obtained statementfrom the passengers in the presence of the driver and the secondrespondent/conductor. The second respondent did not write theinvoice properly and thus, he committed misconduct under clause 14(d) and (ab) of the said Act. The respondent conductor wassuspended with effect from 07.11.1997. The explanation submitted bythe respondent was not satisfactory and therefore, the domesticenquiry was conducted and the second respondent participated in theenquiry. The enquiry officer has held that the charges framedagainst the respondent are proved. The findings of the enquiryofficer were accepted by the General Manager. The past record ofservice of the respondent was also not satisfactory, as he has beenpunished 21 times for various misconducts and thereafter, a showcause notice was issued and finding that there is no exoneratingcircumstance in the explanation submitted by the second respondentfrom the second show cause notice, they have passed the finalorders and hence, the petitioner Corporation has sought for theapproval. 3. The second respondent herein who has filed a counter beforethe Industrial Tribunal has submitted that he was a conductor inthe petitioner Corporation and he had put in 17 years of service.At the relevant time, he was working in Ondipudur Branch of thepetitioner Corporation. He also admitted that he was on duty inthe Bus Route No.S10 between Udayampalayam and Ondipudur. Whenthe checking officials were checking the bus at Lakshmi Mills busstop, one Mr.Raghupathy, collected the tickets from the passengerswho got down at various stops. He also collected the ticket booksfrom the respondent-conductor and had torn some tickets in some ofthe denominations and those tickets were the first tickets at that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time in the hands of the respondent. The checking officials didnot write anything either in the invoice or in the TTR. Usually,the checking officials used to record the irregularity in theinvoice or in the TTR. More importantly, the checking officialsdid not tally the passengers in the bus and the invoice. It wasnot done in any one of the bus stops between Lakshmi Mill andOndipudur. The tallying of number of passengers with the invoiceis usually done in all the checkings. Though the checkingofficials travelled upto Ondipudur, this was not done. Further,they did not obtain any statement from any of the passengers fromwhom tickets were said to have been collected. It is also an usualprocedure. There was no checking of the cash bag. Only with amotive to put him in trouble, this checking was done. Thereafter,the checking officials served the irregularity report at the timeof checking without mentioning any irregularity and therefore, thesecond respondent objected for such irregularity report and henoted his objection. In this situation, the petitioner Corporationissued a charge memo alleging that he had issued half-torn ticketsto the passengers in various denominations thereby misappropriatingRs.60.50.4. It was also contended by the second respondent before theTribunal that by explanation dated 11.11.1997, he sought for anenquiry to prove his innocence. The enquiry was conducted inviolation of principles of natural justice. The checking officialswho were shown as witnesses in the enquiry notice dated 14.11.1997acted as Presenting Officers of the Management and the checkingofficials did the cross examination of the passenger examined onthe side of the respondent. This procedure is bad and illegal.Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered. In theenquiry, three witnesses were examined on the side of theManagement. The third witness was the driver of the bus who spokein favour of the defence. On the side of the respondent, onepassenger was examined and he withstood the cross examination bythe Management. The respondent gave a statement in the enquirywhich was not controverted by way of cross examination. Thefindings of the enquiry officer are perverse, as there is no legalevidence to prove the allegations made against him. Neither thestatements were obtained from the passengers nor the passengerswere examined in the enquiry. The checking officials have admittedthat they did not see the balance, i.e., they failed to tally theinvoice with the number of passengers in the bus. Therefore, theenquiry officer rendered his finding based on no legal evidence.The driver of the bus who was examined as a management witnesscategorically stated that none of the passengers was examined inhis presence and he was not cross examined by the petitionermanagement. No reasons were assigned as to why the checkingofficials did not give any reasons for not recording theircomplaint in the invoice and TTR. A very small portion of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ticket, if torn, cannot be described as half tickets. In thereport, there is no proper reason and basis to allege that therespondent has committed a misconduct. Either in the report of thechecking officials or in the charge memo, no mention has been madeabout Rs.1.10 tickets. When the respondent was not subjected tocross examination, the enquiry officer ought to have accepted hisversion and therefore, he prayed the Tribunal to dismiss theapproval petition.5. The Industrial Tribunal, on a careful analysis of theevidence adduced before it and also the Exs.M.1 to 24, gave afinding that both M.Ws.1 and 2 have admitted that they did not seethe balance during checking. The checking by balance means,counting the heads of the passengers and tallying the same with theinvoice. Both the witnesses have admitted that they did not checkthe balance. According to M.W.1, even if 100 passengers travelledin the bus, it will take only five minutes to check the balance.In Ex.M.2, TTR, it is specifically mentioned that because ofchecking the invoice after enquiring every passenger, there is aloss of 12 kilometres in the trip. But they did not check thepassengers in connection with the invoice. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that any of the passengers was without ticket.6. The Tribunal found that the mistake committed by thechecking officials is the failure to check the cash bag. In allcases of checking, receiving paise from the passengers but notissuing tickets or issuing bogus tickets or tickets issued withaltered fare or in the case of suspected misappropriation as inthis case, it is the duty of the checking officials to check thecash bag and keeping excess amount in cash bag without declaringthe amount of personal money itself is a misconduct. If there isno cash, then there is no possibility of any misappropriation. Ifreally the second respondent had misappropriated Rs.60.50, averification of the cash bag would have revealed the truth. 7. One more aspect of the evidence is that the driver wasexamined as a management witness and he has stated that hissignature was obtained in a blank form. The petitioner did notcross examine the driver on this aspect nor did it treat him as ahostile witness. During cross examination, M.W.3 has stated thatno passenger was examined in his presence and no passengercomplained that he was issued the half tickets and that 10 daysprior to the incident, he has deposed that one Raghupathy-checkingofficial threatened him to depose as per their complaint, failingwhich he also would be implicated in a false case like this. Inspite of such evidence, the petitioner has neither cross examinedM.W.3 Driver, nor treated him as a hostile witness. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The Industrial Tribunal also took cognizance of the rulingof this Court in W.P.No.11316 of 1984, wherein it is stated that ifthere is a perverse finding, the Tribunal is justified in refusingto grant approval as prayed for by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Tribunalfound that the tickets produced by the petitioner management werehighly suspicious in the sense that nearly 16 of 17 tickets werebearing both the ticket number and the fare amount and there wereno half tickets as contended by the petitioner. Secondly, therewas no explanation for the presence of 7 tickets of Rs.1.10denomination. The checking officials have not even noted theaddress of any of the passengers nor have they obtained anystatement from any witness. The evidence of the management alonecannot be conclusive and acceptable evidence in the absence of notexamining the passengers or co-passengers to prove the guilt of theworkman. The findings of the enquiry officer were perverse innature and therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion thatthere is no cogent and compelling evidence on record to make outthat the respondent is guilty of misappropriation and dismissed theapproval petition.9. Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, learned counsel for the petitionerCorporation has contended that the Industrial Tribunal's decisionin dismissing the approval petition is without jurisdiction and isvitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the records. TheTribunal ought to have seen that the respondent himself hasaccepted the offence, by signing the statement in the presence ofthe passengers, driver as well as the checking officials. It isalso contended that the first respondent – Tribunal ought to haveseen that the petitioner Management has followed the due procedurecontemplated and the principles of natural justice and furthercontended that it failed to consider the serious irregularitiescommitted by the second respondent by misappropriating the publicmoney and it failed to take note that the action taken by thepetitioner management is in the interest of the public statutorycorporation. Therefore, dismissing the approval petition filed bythe petitioner Management is highly arbitrary and hence seeks forapproval.10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for thepetitioner Corporation has relied on a decision of the SupremeCourt of India reported in 2005(1)LLJ 569 in the case of CholanRoadways Ltd., vs. G.Thirugnanasambandam, and the relevant parasread as follows:"20. Res ipsa loquitur is a well known principlewhich is applicable in the instant case. Once the saiddoctrine is found to be applicable the burden of proofwould shift on the delinquent. As noticed hereinabove,the inquiry officer has categorically rejected the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defence of the respondent that the bus was being drivenat a low speed.25. Furthermore, in a case involving accident it isnot essential to examine the passengers of the bus. InState of Haryana & Ors. vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC1512 : 1977 (2) SCC 491 : 1982-I-LLJ-46, this Courtobserved at p.47 of LLJ:"5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated,on the non-compliance with the departmentalinstruction that statement of passengers shouldbe recorded by Inspectors. These areinstructions of prudence, not rules that bind orvitiate in the violation, in this case, theInspector tried to get the statements but thepassengers declined, the psychology of thelatter in such circumstances beingunderstandable, although may not be approved.We cannot hold that merely because statements ofpassengers were not recorded the order thatfollowed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength ofco-conductor's testimony is a matter not for thecourt but for the administrative Tribunal. Inconclusion, we do not think the Courts belowwere right in overturning the finding of thedomestic Tribunal."31. This decision also has no application to thefacts of the present case. In the instance case thePresiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal as also thelearned single Judge and the Division Bench of the HighCourt misdirected themselves in law insofar as theyfailed to pose unto themselves correct questions. It isnow well-settled that a quasi-judicial authority mustpose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at acorrect finding of fact. A wrong question posed leads toa wrong answer. In this case, further more, themisdirection in law committed by the Industrial Tribunalwas apparent insofar as it did not apply the principle ofres ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the purpose ofthis case and, thus, failed to take into consideration arelevant factor and furthermore took into considerationan irrelevant fact not germane for determining the issue,namely, the passengers of the bus were mandatorilyrequired to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal furtherfailed to apply the correct standard of proof in relationto a domestic inquiry, which is "preponderance ofprobability" and applied the standard of proof required https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for a criminal trial. A case for judicial review was,thus, clearly made out."11. Further, the learned counsel for the petitionerCorporation relied on a decision reported in 2005 II LLJ 1144[Jambunathan C. vs. Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai TransportCorporation Ltd. (Now Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Ltd.,Kumbakonam) Division II, Tiruchirapali rep. By its M.D. andanother], and the relevant paragraphs reads as under:"4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in JanathaBazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha AIR 2000 SC3129 : 2000 (7) SCC 517 : 2000-II-LLJ-1395 that once theact of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small orlarge amount, there is no question of uncalled forsympathy and reinstating the employee in service. In theabove decision, the Supreme Court relied on its earlierdecision Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. KrishnanBehari and others AIR 1996 SC 1249 : 1996(2)SCC 714,wherein it was held that in cases of misappropriation,there cannot be any other punishment other thandismissal. It was further observed by the Supreme Courtthat any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalledfor and opposed to public interest. The amountmisappropriated may be small or large, but it is the actof misappropriation that is relevant."12. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for thesecond respondent – conductor contended that the checkingofficials, particularly, Mr.Raghupathy collected tickets from thepassengers who got down at various stops. He had also taken theticket books from the respondent and had torn some tickets in someof the denominations and those tickets were the first tickets atthat time in the hands of the respondent – conductor. The checkingofficials did not write anything either in the invoice or in theTTR. The usual procedure is to record the irregularity in theinvoice or in the TTR. They did not tally the passengers in thebus and the invoice. It was not done in any of the bus stopsbetween Lakshmi Mill and Ondipudur. 13. He further contended that not considering the witnessM.W.3 – driver of the bus who was examined on the side of thepetitioner management, namely the petitioner Corporation and onlytreating him as a hostile witness as he has deposed in favour ofthe defence is a perverse finding. He also argued that thechecking of the cash bag would have revealed if really the secondrespondent had misappropriated Rs.60.50. It is not the case of thechecking officials that the second respondent did not allow thechecking of the cash bag. There is no answer on the part of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner Corporation as to why they have not checked the cash tofind out whether any amount is in excess to prove the case ofmisappropriation. The non-examination of the passengers isperverse in nature. For all these contentions, the learned counselfor the second respondent in support of his case, has relied onthe following decisions, which read as follows:1. 1994(2)LLJ 350 [Jeeva Transport Corporation Limited vs.Industrial Tribunal and another]"5. The Tribunal has found, after discussing theevidence on record, that the evidence is totallyinsufficient to hold that the charges are proved. Thus,the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record andcome to the conclusion that the findings recorded by thedomestic enquiry officer are perverse. That, theTribunal is entitled to do.6. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Bharat IronWorks v. Bhagubhai, AIR 1976 SC 98. The Supreme Courtheld that there is no defect in procedure in a domesticenquiry against an employee, the Tribunal, while grantingor withholding permission under Sec.33 does not sit as acourt of appeal, weighing or reappreciating the evidencefor itself but only examines the finding of the enquiryofficer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is,in order to find out either whether there is a primafacie case or if the findings are perverse. Thus, theSupreme Court has held that the Tribunal is entitled toconsider whether the finding of the domestic enquiryofficer is perverse or not. The judgment really does notin any way support the petitioner herein. In this case,the Tribunal has further taken into account all therelevant facts and come to the conclusion that thefinding of the domestic enquiry officer is perverse.2. 2004(2)LLN 1059 [Management, Cheran Transport CorporationLtd., Coimbatore vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,Madras and another]. In the above decision, the learned counselrelies on the following paragraph:"In this context, the decision in Uttar PradeshState Road Transport Corporation and others v. MaheshKumar Mishra and others [2000 (2) L.L.N.399] (videsupra), is relevant, wherein the Supreme Court held thatwhen none of the passengers had been examined toascertain where they had boarded the bus and thetransport Inspector had also not recorded the statementof the passengers, the punishment of dismissal wasshockingly disproportionate. In the State of Haryana andanother v. Rattan Singh [1977 (2) L.L.N.50] (vide supra), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the delinquent employee had approached the civil Courtfor a declaration that the order of termination was anullity. That does not apply to the facts of the presentcase and in any event, the Tribunal has held against themanagement, not only because of non examination ofpassengers. The reasons given by the first respondent forsetting aside the findings of the enquiry officer cannotbe said to be perverse or illegal. Therefore, the writpetition is dismissed. No costs."3. In the decision reported in 2002(2)LLN 704 [Management ofJeeva Transport Corporation, Ltd., (represented by its ManagingDirector), Erode vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal ofTamil Nadu, Madras and another], the learned counsel relied on thefollowing paragraphs:"10. I have considered the submissions of both sides. Ihave also perused the enquiry officer's findings. It isno doubt true, that the enquiry officer has found thatthe claim of the driver that the victim had suddenlycrossed the road was without any substance. The morerelevant issue to be considered in this case is that noeye witness had been examined on the side of themanagement. Added to the same, a perusal of theTribunal's order shows that the conductor though notexamined has given a report on the same day. Evenaccording to the statement of the conductor, the victimwas standing on the left side of the bridge and that hesuddenly crossed the road. The report of the conductorsupports the claim of the delinquent. But on the otherhand, in the enquiry report, it is seen that the enquiryofficer had concluded that the victim had crossed theroad from the right side of the road. This finding iscontrary to the report of the conductor himself.12. It is also seen that a witness was examined onthe side of the worker and he had not been subjected tocross-examination. This would strike at the root of thepropriety of the enquiry report and the nature of theenquiry before the enquiry officer."4. Further, the learned counsel relied on a Division Benchjudgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 292 of 2005,which reads as under:"As pointed by the learned counsel for the petitionerthe Supreme Court has gone in to similar contentions inthe case reported in Regional Authority, Dena Bank andanother and Chandhyam (2001-II-LLJ page 252). Whiledealing with the similar contentions, the Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has observed that it needs no debate to conclude that onreinstatement the respondent will be entitled to hissalary on par with other employees working in the samepost."5. Paragraphs 38 and 39 relied by the learned counsel inthe judgment reported in 1972(1)LLJ 180[Delhi Cloth and GeneralMills Co.Ltd. and Ludh Budh Singh] read as follows:38. The Industrial Tribunal had to consider whetherthe appellant had made out a prima facie case forpermission being granted for the action proposed tobe taken against the workman. For that purpose theTribunal was justified in considering the nature ofthe allegations made against the workman, thefindings recorded by the enquiry officer and thematerials that were available before the enquiryofficer, on the basis of which such findings hadbeen recorded. Accepting the contention of Mr.Anandthat it was within the jurisdiction of the enquiryofficer to accept the evidence of Sujan Singh andRampal will be over-simplifying the matter anddenying the legitimate jurisdiction of the Tribunalin such matters to consider whether the findings aresuch as no reasonable person could have arrived aton the basis of the materials before the enquiryofficer. If the materials before the enquiry officerare such, from which the conclusion arrived at bythe enquiry officer could not have been arrived atby a reasonable person, then it is needless tostate, as laid down by this Court in Central Bank ofIndia Ltd., New Delhi v. Shri Prakash Chand Jain[1969-II L.L.J.377], (1969) 1 S.C.R.735, that thefinding has to be characterized as perverse. If sothe Industrial Tribunal had ample jurisdiction tointerfere with such a finding.39. We have already pointed out that theTribunal has not taken into account the admissionsmade by Sujan Singh in his cross examination wherehe has not attributed any act of destruction orviolence to the respondent. The enquiry officer hasproceeded on the basis that though Rampal declinedto participate in the enquiry at an earlier stage,that circumstance does not affect his veracity, whenhe has later on appeared to give evidence. Thisobservation of the enquiry officer clearly showsthat he has not at all cared to give effect to therecord made by him on June 13, 1966 to the effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that Rampal had refused to give evidence because hehad no knowledge about the occurrence. If a personhad no knowledge on June 13, 1966, that is a matterwhich had to be very carefully borne in mind by theenquiry officer when he again came to give evidenceabout the incident. This aspect has not been givendue consideration by the enquiry officer. Thereforea finding recorded by an enquiry officer ignoringthe material admissions made by a party in favour ofan accused, is not a question of mere appreciationof evidence, but really recording a finding contraryto the evidence adduced before him. Even otherwise,the findings recorded by the enquiry officer arerather very strange. He does not hold therespondent guilty of any act of violence or ofdestruction of the mill's property or of obstructingthe workmen from going to their place of work. Thesewere the allegations of misconduct in the charge-sheet. But curiously, the enquiry officer proceedson the basis that because the workman was in thecrowd, that by itself is enough to find him guiltyof the charges of obstructing the mill workers anddestroying mill property. The enquiry officer hasalso committed another mistake when he proceeded onthe basis that as the workman has not adduced anyevidence in his defence, it is not open to him tocontend that he was not responsible for the acts ofdestruction and damages. This observation clearlyshows that the enquiry officer has missed theelementary principle of jurisprudence that whenallegations of misconduct are levelled against aperson, it is the primary duty of the person makingthose allegations to establish the same and not foran accused to adduce negative evidence to the effectthat he is not guilty."14. I have carefully scrutinised the entire records and theenquiry officer's findings and considered the submission of thelearned counsel on both sides. Admittedly, when the respondent-Conductor was on the bus route S10 on a particular day and time,there was a checking carried out by the checking officials of thepetitioner Corporation. Since it was Deepavali festival time,there were more than 100 passengers. There were many stops inbetween Udhayampalayam and Ondipudur, in the above said route. Thefindings of the enquiry officer is that the respondent conductorhas misappropriated Rs.60.50 and has committed a misconduct inissuing half-torn tickets, thereby leading to the grave punishmentof dismissal of the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. The most relevant issue to be considered in this case isthat whether the passengers who had been issued with half-torntickets were examined or not. Moreover, M.W.3 – the driver of thebus was examined as a witness on the side of the management. But,when he has deposed in favour of the second respondent conductor,he was not cross examined. This witness has been not treated ashostile. Normally, the procedure in checking is tallying theticket numbers issued to the passengers with that of the conductorand thereafter, checking of the cash bag to find out whether thereis any excess cash, to arrive at a proper conclusion. If there isexcess cash, then there can be a possibility of anymisappropriation. Even if there is less cash, that would be anirregularity committed by the conductor-the second respondentherein. This aspect was not at all considered by the enquiryofficer and therefore, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that thereis perverse finding in the enquiry inasmuch as the crucial fact ofthe evidence, the non-examination of the passengers, the non-checking of the cash were not considered. 16. The Tribunal, further held that there is no cogent andcompelling evidence on record to make out that the secondrespondent is guilty of misappropriation and presumptions cannottake the place of proof by means of acceptable evidence andtherefore, it has rejected the approval petition. This is a casewhere the order of dismissal was vitiated by perversity as theenquiry officer's report was perverse in nature. The Tribunal hastaken a clear view that the report is vitiated by perverse findingand therefore, rejected the approval petition.17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and from thediscussion and rulings of the Supreme Court and this court (supra)and upon giving due consideration to the submission made by thecounsel on either side, I am of the considered view that theTribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the enquiryfindings and the report are vitiated by perversity, based on whichthe petitioner Corporation has dismissed the second respondent fromservice. This reasoning of the Tribunal is in conformity with theevidence and the rulings discussed above and therefore, thedecision arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal is confirmed. Inthat view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that theorder passed by the Industrial Tribunal is in no way contrary tolaw and therefore, the petitioner Corporation cannot succeed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and isaccordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently,the second respondent is permitted to withdraw the deposited amountof Rs.50,000/- after a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gmsToThe Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal,Chennai.1 cc to Mr.D. Hariparanthaman, Advocate, sr. 110821 cc to Mr.V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate, sr. 11043 W.P.No.4380 of 2000MJ (CO)kk 2/3