Financial misappropriation justifies termination for loss of confidence irrespective of past record or subsequent restitution.

The Petitioner was employed as a Sales Clerk with Respondent No. 2 from 14.07.1971

On 12.04.1989, he was served a charge-sheet alleging misappropriation of ₹40,403.64 and a cash shortage detected during internal audits for 1986–1989

Following a domestic inquiry, his services were terminated on 30.06.1989

The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute (I.D. No. 293/1990).

On 02.09.1996, the Industrial Tribunal held the domestic inquiry invalid for violating principles of natural justice but granted the Management liberty to prove misconduct through fresh evidence

On 05.07.2002, the Tribunal passed the Impugned Award, upholding the termination after finding the charges of misappropriation proved via the Petitioner’s handwritten admissions and undertakings

The Petitioner challenged this Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the Petitioner committed misappropriation was perverse or based on no evidence, warranting interference under Article 226

Whether the Management’s failure to examine the authors of the internal audit reports or independent witnesses vitiated the proceedings

Whether the Petitioner’s admissions were involuntary or obtained through coercion and inducement

Whether the punishment of termination was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct

principles of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, establishing that a High Court cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate facts unless the findings are perverse or based on "no evidence," as held in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan

Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union

Regarding industrial adjudication, the Court noted that strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply; rather, the "nexus" and "reasonableness" of evidence suffice (State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh)

For the quantum of punishment, it applied the "loss of confidence" doctrine and the "shocking the conscience" test from Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh

Janatha Bazar v. Secretary, which dictates that sympathy for long service is unwarranted in proven cases of financial misappropriation

The Court determined that its jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or manifest perversity, not substituting the Tribunal's factual conclusions

It found that the Tribunal’s decision was not based on "no evidence" but on substantial documentary material, specifically the Petitioner’s handwritten notings admitting the failure to post amounts in the cash book and his undertakings to deposit the same

The Court dismissed the Petitioner’s reliance on Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P., noting that the non-examination of audit authors did not cause prejudice because the Petitioner’s own admissions and subsequent conduct—requesting adjustments from his provident fund—corroborated the reports

Furthermore, the Court rejected the plea of coercion as "vague," noting that the Petitioner failed to provide material particulars of the alleged threats and had taken contradictory stands throughout the proceedings

It held that the punishment of termination was not "shockingly disproportionate" given the Petitioner’s fiduciary role and the resulting loss of confidence by the employer

The High Court found no infirmity or perversity in the Impugned Award dated 05.07.2002

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the termination was upheld