JUDGMENT
R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by two awards dated 25-8-1998 and 16-11-1998 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in Reference No. C.G.I.T. 247. By part I award, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry held against the workman was as per the principles of natural justice but the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and therefore, the management was allowed to lead evidence to substantiate its action. In the opinion of the management, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse and, therefore, it did not lead any oral evidence in the matter. Specific purshis was filed by the petitioners that it did not want to lead any evidence. By its part II award (final) the Tribunal has held that since the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse, meaning thereby, the charges were not proved against the workman and therefore, they could not be punished. The Tribunal, therefore, finally held that the order of dismissal of both the workman was not legal and was not justified and that they were entitled to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity of service. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the management to reinstate both the workman in the service with full backwages and continuity of service.
2. While granting rule in the above matters, the petitioners were directed to deposit the full amount of the backwages and the respondents were allowed to withdraw 50% thereof on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Senior Master. Since the order of reinstatement was stayed by this Court, the workman were ordered to be paid wages under section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. The respondents were employed as Mazdoors under the petitioners. By a charge sheet dated 29th July, 1988, it was alleged against both the workmen that they had committed theft of photo film rolls from Shed No. 17 and therefore, they had committed an act of misconduct under Regulation 22(2-B) of the Bombay Port Trust Rules and Regulations for Non Scheduled Staff and Regulation 3(1) of the Bombay Port Trust Employees Conduct Regulation, 1976. From the events which appear to have preceded the charge sheet, it appears that the two workmen along with four others had allegedly stolen film rolls on 15-2-1987. On 28-2-1987 police made panchanama on the spot. It however, appears that on 27-6-87 one of the aforesaid six persons admitted theft of the film rolls along with two workmen. It further appears that on the same day the police recovered the property from a shop shown by the main accused, an outsider, in the entire episode. It appears that the main accused had implicated one of the workmen Shri Ramesh Jadhav, while another accused Shri Gunaji Bhikaji Masavkar implicated the other workmen Shri Harishchandra Ghag. Both have given a statement each, before the police in the presence of panchas that on 15-2-1987 from Shed No. 17 they had committed theft of the film roll and that they had sold the same to a shop keeper who received the stolen goods. Both the accused appear to have taken the police at the shop and it appears that the stolen goods were recovered from the places shown by both the accused.
4. A serious question posed for my consideration on behalf of the petitioners is what more and additional material was necessary or required by the Tribunal before the Enquiry Officer to punish the delinquent workmen? Whether in the disciplinary proceedings the employer has to prove the misconduct alleged against a workman to the hilt as required in a criminal trial or the employer would be justified to act on some good material on record to impose punishment under the disciplinary rules, regulations or standing orders?
5. I have carefully gone through the enquiry proceedings and the findings or the report of the enquiry officer. I have also carefully examined the charges reflected in the statement of imputation of misconduct and articles of charges. There is no dispute that a theft of film rolls from Cartons from the Shed No. 17 had taken place. Even the Criminal Court has come to this definite finding that from the evidence on record the fact of theft was established by the prosecution. The Criminal Court however acquitted one of the delinquent workman on the ground that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said delinquent workman was guilty of the offence of theft. I may further mention at this stage itself that the other delinquent workman was discharged from the case on the ground that there was no evidence against him to prosecute him. The petitioners however have continued the disciplinary proceedings by holding the domestic enquiry wherein both the delinquent workmen had participated. There is no dispute that both of them were given full opportunity of hearing and there was no grievance or complaint of infraction of any principles of natural justice or any violation of the rules and regulations governing the domestic enquiry. Even the Tribunal has found that the enquiry was fair and proper procedurally. The Tribunal however has held that the findings are perverse and they do not flow from the evidence on record. As stated earlier, the Tribunal has held that no misconduct was proved against the workmen from the evidence on record, and therefore, it granted reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service to both the workmen. The Enquiry Officer however has found both of them guilty of the misconduct levelled against them. The Enquiry Officer has set out the facts giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings. He has stated that on complaint by the petitioners the police investigated the offence and arrested the delinquent workmen amongst others. The main accused one Shri Gurmukh Sevakram Raijhuria who appears to be the brain behind the incident had given the name of one of the delinquent and had also volunteered to show the shop and the person to whom the stolen material was sold. He led the police to the shop from where the property was recovered. Another accused Shri Masavkar had also named another delinquent workman involved in the incident and he also led the police to another shop where the stolen goods were sold. The police recovered from both the places the stolen property and a regular panchanama at both the places was drawn. The Enquiry Officer has discussed the prosecution case, witness wise. There were 10 witnesses examined before him, amongst them were a Police Constable of the concerned Police Station, and Police Sub-Inspector attached to the concerned Police Station, who had investigated the case. He has given his statement verbatim and had also broadly stated the evidence which was consistent with the panchanamas and the statements recorded by him. He was cross examined on behalf of the delinquent workmen. He denied the charge of use of force against the delinquent workmen. Another Police Sub-Inspector was examined, as his predecessor was transferred meanwhile. He has also given the verbatim evidence which took place during the course of investigation. He was also cross examined and he also denied the charge of use of forces against the workmen. Both the Police Sub Inspectors have proved the fact that the delinquent workmen had given their statements admitting their involvement in the incident of theft and that they had given such statements voluntarily. The enquiry officer has discussed the evidence of 10 witnesses and 16 documents placed before him. He has also recorded that out of seven charge-sheeted employees three were discharged by the Criminal Court on 11-7-1988 and the remaining four were acquitted by the Court. The enquiry officer has also considered the defence that the charge-sheeted employees were acquitted on merits on the same evidence and, therefore, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to ignore the judgments of the Criminal Court. The enquiry officer has analysed and discussed every piece of evidence and material placed before him. In paragraph 5 of his report the enquiry officer has independently recorded his assessment of evidence and findings. The enquiry officer has independently recorded his conclusions and the reasons there for. On the basis of the evidence and material produced before him the enquiry officer has accepted the case of the prosecution and discarded and disbelieved the defence. From the whole enquiry report it is pertinent to note that the enquiry officer has followed the well established principles of preponderance of evidence as is required to be followed in civil litigation and the departmental proceedings. It is very well established that the departmental or domestic enquiries are not to be treated as criminal trials. The employer has to come to his own conclusion based on the material on record after giving reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in compliance with the rules and regulations. He has to decide as any reasonable man in the given circumstances would decide. He is not expected to decide the case arbitrarily and unreasonably. He is further not expected to apply the strick principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is not necessary for him to wait till the misconduct is proved to hilt. He has to follow the principle of preponderances of evidence and probabilities. In my opinion the enquiry officer has correctly followed the law and has decided the case on the basis of the material before him. I am also of the opinion that there was more than sufficient material before the Enquiry Officer to base his findings and conclusions. He has recorded his reasons to come to certain conclusions. His report is a well reasoned report. It cannot be said to be a ipse dixit or in any way perverse. The findings can be condemned as perverse only when there is no material to support such findings or there is lack or absence of any material. I, therefore, do not agree with the findings of the Tribunal that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse or baseless. The Tribunal has given a very brief summary of the evidence before the Enquiry Officer. He has wound up the entire discussion of the enquiry officer in one paragraph and has held that at most the evidence reveals that there was a theft of films from the Pallet No. 17 Indira Dock. He has also concluded that from the testimony of witness before the enquiry officer it could not be held that the workmen were party to the offence of theft. The Tribunal has not at all considered the evidence on the touch stone of the principles of preponderance of probabilities. He has not given cogent reasons for discarding the prosecution case before the enquiry officer. In paragraph 19 in a few lines he has discarded the testimony of the two Police Inspectors examined before the Enquiry Officer. He has merely observed that from their statement it was not revealed that the charges were proved against the delinquent workmen. While the Enquiry Officer has taken pains to consider the statements of the witnesses and the documents in around 30 pages, the learned Tribunal has condemned such findings without good and cogent reasons in two paragraphs of his award. If not a very learned and detailed process of reasoning the Tribunal is expected to give some reasons to discard the evidence and material before the enquiry officer, who has given his findings based on such evidence and material. The evidence of the Enquiry Officer cannot be brushed aside so lightly and so summarily as has been done by the Tribunal. The enquiry officer had before him the confessional statements of the delinquent workmen and the other accused. The panchanamas and the testimony of the other independent witnesses have proved the correctness and veracity of such statements. According to me, the Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The petitioners have rightly adhered to their case that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were not perverse but they were based on evidence and material, and therefore, according to the petitioners the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the petitioners on the delinquent workmen. Both the Police Officers have produced cogent material before the Enquiry Officer including the confessional statements recorded by them during their investigation of the crime. They were thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the delinquent workmen. And the Enquiry Officer has believed them and has based his findings on their testimony amongst others. I fail to understand why in every case the evidence of the Police should be looked at with suspicion. The Supreme Court in the matter of State Government of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Sunil and another, reported in J.T. 2000 (Suppl. 3) S.C. 267 in paragraphs 21 has observed as under :
“We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way around. The official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the Legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the Police Officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police, the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, or to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.”
6. According to me, the petitioners have proved their case of misconduct against both the delinquent workmen in the domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has rightly held them guilty of the misconduct and the petitioners have rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal on them. It cannot be said that the petitioners have not justified their action before the Tribunal.
7. The impugned award dated 25-8-1998 is modified by substituting the Order No. 2 whereby the findings of the Enquiry Officer are held to be perverse as under :
“The findings of the Enquiry Officer are legal, valid and not perverse.”
The impugned award to that extent is quashed and set aside.
The impugned award dated 16-11-1998 is also quashed and set aside for the reasons recorded by me.”
Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b). No order as tocosts.
8. Shri Sawant, the learned Advocate for the respondents-workmen prays for stay of this order. He also prays that the petitioners should not be allowed to withdraw the deposited amount. The petitioners shall not withdraw the deposited amount for a period of four weeks. Prayer for stay of the order is refused.
9. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
Rule made absolute.