In this case, it has to be seen that though 2 charges levelled against the 1st respondent i.e., shortage of amount of Rs.74/- in the cash bag and alteration of SRs, are proved in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court found that 1st charge is proved, but held that since the same is recovered from the salary of the petitioner, the same will not amount to misappropriation. As far as the 2nd charge is concerned i.e., alteration of SR’s, the Labour Court held that charges are vague and are not proved. The Labour Court has not discussed the issue why it came to the said conclusion and has not recorded any reasons for setting aside the findings of the Domestic Enquiry. No doubt when there is misappropriation and charges are proved, the punishment of removal cannot be termed as illegal as per the judgment reported in Divisional Controller’s case. But in this case, as the charge of misappropriation is held to be not proved, the ratio laid in the above judgment will not be applicable to the present case. Normally, the Tribunal and the Courts will not interfere with facts basing on evidence without any basis. In view of the same, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. However, by virtue of orders of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service and retired on superannuation. More so, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and t h e Labour Court has exercised its discretion and set aside the punishment. This Court granted interim order directing the petitioner to deposit half of the back wages awarded by the Tribunal and also permitted the 1st respondent to withdrawn the same. Accordingly, the 1st respondent has withdrawn the said amount.
