JUDGMENT - MHATRE NISHITA, J.:—This petition challenges the orders of the Labour Court dated 5-9-1994 and 28-10-1994 in Application (B.I.R) No. 36 of 1993 and orders dated 22-11-1994 and 6-9-1995 of the Industrial Court. 2. The petitioner joined service of respondent No. 1 as a peon in the accounts department. He was served with a suspension order on 9-1-1992 suspending him with immediate effect. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 21-2-1992 alleging that he had committed acts of misconduct under the standing orders applicable to him. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner was that he had abetted, connived or attempted to commit theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business property or affairs of the bank. The charge-sheet was issued on the basis of a complaint received by the bank from one M.N. Jadhav who alleged that the petitioner collected Rs. 6000/- from him by promising him employment with the Bank. A further amount of Rs. 6000/- was collected by the petitioner after handing over a fabricates and false appointment letter on the banks letterhead. An enquiry was held against him. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and observed that the petitioner had misused his official position and the banks letterhead by cheating an innocent person for financial gains. The disciplinary authority was of the view that the bank had lost confidence in the petitioner and that there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances to view the misconduct leniently. The petitioner was therefore, dismissed from service on 17-12-1992. Prior to the dismissal order being issued to the petitioner, he had filed a complaint on 30-9-1992 under Item 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act for obtaining orders against the continuance of the domestic enquiry. It appears that the Labour Court refused to pass any interim orders and, therefore, the complaint was withdrawn on 15-10-1992 after which the dismissal order was passed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order filed departmental appeals which were rejected. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It appears that the Labour Court refused to pass any interim orders and, therefore, the complaint was withdrawn on 15-10-1992 after which the dismissal order was passed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order filed departmental appeals which were rejected. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. This application came to be dismissed on 1-10-1993 because the Labour Court held that the application was not maintainable; the complaint having been filed earlier under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, the bar under section 59 of the M.R.T.P. P.U.L.P. Act operated. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against this order, which was set aside by the Industrial Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent bank was dismissed on 27-4-1994. Consequently, the application under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was heard on merits. 3. After the pleadings were complete and evidence of the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer was led on the preliminary issue, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had specifically raised a plea that the complaint allegedly made by one Jadhav did not disclose the specific time or place or the incident of him having allegedly received the cash from Jadhav. A grievance was also made by the petitioner that the appointment letter which he was supposed to have fabricated was not produced on record and he was furnished a xerox copy of the same only after the enquiry proceedings had commenced. It was also the petitioners contention that he was not allowed to examine his own witnesses. A further contention was raises that the Enquiry Officer was biased and, therefore, had asked the petitioner 72 questions in the form of cross-examination. By this, the Enquiry Officer, according to the petitioner, had sought to fill in the lacunae in the cross-examination of the petitioner by the managements representative. It was also the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer was not authorised under the standing orders as only the branch manager or chief accountant could be an Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was also challenged on the ground that subsistence allowance of only 50% of the wages was paid during the course of the enquiry which vitiated the enquiry. The enquiry was also challenged on the ground that subsistence allowance of only 50% of the wages was paid during the course of the enquiry which vitiated the enquiry. The Labour Court after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer could put as many questions as he deemed necessary to elicit the information and to get true facts. The Labour Court was of the view that the enquiry held was fair and proper. The Labour Court held that the subsistence allowance had also been paid in accordance with the standing orders and, therefore, the enquiry could not be said to be vitiated. 4. After the order of the Labour Court holding that the enquiry was fair and proper, the petitioner challenged the same in appeal. The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal on 26-10-1994 and confirmed the order of the Labour Court that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. 5. The other issues regarding the perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner were decided. 6. The Labour Court was of the view that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not perverse and that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner had been proved. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that it could not be said that merely because the bank did not take any action by way of criminal proceedings against the petitioner he was not guilty of the misconduct. The Labour Court compared the handwriting of the petitioner with the handwriting and numbers found on the fabricated appointment letter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for fabricating the document. 7. As regards the punishment, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not deserve a lesser punishment as the misconduct committed by him was grave. The past service record show that the petitioner had been issued memos on various occasions for several acts of misconduct including misplacing cheques. However, the Labour Court granted the petitioner Rs. 50,000/- to enable him to maintain his family in future. The claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages was rejected. Being aggrieved by this order, the bank as well as the petitioner filed appeals. The Industrial Court quashed the order of the Labour Court granting ex gratia amount of Rs. However, the Labour Court granted the petitioner Rs. 50,000/- to enable him to maintain his family in future. The claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages was rejected. Being aggrieved by this order, the bank as well as the petitioner filed appeals. The Industrial Court quashed the order of the Labour Court granting ex gratia amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Labour Court and of the Industrial Court, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 9. The petitioner has argued the matter in person after discharging the Advocate he had earlier appointed. The petitioner has presented written submissions before this Court. The main thrust of the submissions made by the petitioner is that he was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry since the Enquiry Officer asked him 72 questions, which according to the petitioner amounted to the Enquiry Officer cross-examining him. The petitioner also submitted that before a document could be said to have been fabricated by him it was necessary for the bank to have examined the document through a hand writing expert. It is also urged by the petitioner that had the bank found that the misconduct if at all committed by the petitioner was serious, the bank would definitely have instituted criminal proceedings against him. Not having done so, it indicates that even the bank was not sure of the fact that the petitioner had indeed committed the misconduct. According to the petitioner, the bias of the Enquiry Officer was apparent as he had examined the petitioner by putting to him 72 questions after the management representative had cross-examined him. On merits, the petitioner submitted that the findings were per verse as there was nothing on record to indicate that it was he who had fabricated the document, that is the so called appointment letter, or that it was he who had handed over that document to Jadhav in order to secure employment for the latter. According to the petitioner, it was not proved that he had in fact received any amount "from M.N. Jadhav and, therefore, urged that the enquiry held against him should be set aside and the order of the Labour Court holding him guilty of the misconduct alleged against be set aside. 10. According to the petitioner, it was not proved that he had in fact received any amount "from M.N. Jadhav and, therefore, urged that the enquiry held against him should be set aside and the order of the Labour Court holding him guilty of the misconduct alleged against be set aside. 10. The learned Advocate for the bank submitted that both the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court need not be disturbed or interferred with under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submitted that since the scope of the jurisdiction vested in this Court is limited to cases where the Labour Court or Industrial Court have acted without jurisdiction or have exercised powers beyond their jurisdiction, this Court should set aside the orders. He urged that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate any error of law, much less an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Several Judgments have been cited by the learned Advocate on the scope of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227. On merits, he submitted that Enquiry Officer had merely sought to elicit the truth by questioning the petitioner. The conduct of the enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that the Labour Court had arrived at a finding of fact the handwriting of the petitioner matched the writing and numbers found on the fabricated appointment letter, which should not be disturbed. According to the learned Advocate, the bank had lost confidence in the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner should be dismissed. 11. In order to satisfy myself that the enquiry proceedings had been conducted correctly, the Record and Proceeding was called for. On perusal of the same, I find that the submission made by the petitioner regarding fairness of the enquiry is justified. The Enquiry Officer has in fact put to the petitioner 72 questions after the management representative had finished cross- examining the petitioner. The managements representative had asked the petitioner 53 questions by way of cross-examination. An extensive and searching cross-examination was conducted by the management representative. After subjecting the petitioner to this cross-examination, the Enquiry Officer questioned the petitioner. I have perused the questions asked by the Enquiry Officer. These questions do not appear to be questions asked in order to seek clarification or elucidation in the matter. An extensive and searching cross-examination was conducted by the management representative. After subjecting the petitioner to this cross-examination, the Enquiry Officer questioned the petitioner. I have perused the questions asked by the Enquiry Officer. These questions do not appear to be questions asked in order to seek clarification or elucidation in the matter. Instead, the questions asked by the Enquiry Officer seek to plug the loopholes in the cross-examination conducted by the managements representative. 12. It is obvious that the Enquiry Officer has not acted as a Judge but rather as a prosecutor and, therefore, the enquiry must be set aside. As held by this Court in the case of (D.S. Patil v. Raptakos Bret and Co. Ltd. others)1, 1986(53) F.L.R. 39, it is not for the Enquiry Officer to enter into the arena and to conduct everything himself. The record indicates that the Enquiry Officer questioned the petitioner extensively and the questions asked of the petitioner, can by no stretch of imagination be considered necessary to obtain any clarification from the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has certainly stepped into the arena and has exceeding his jurisdiction by violating the principles of natural justice. This certainly is a travesty of natural justice and fair play which the Labour Court has failed to appreciate. Since the enquiry has been held to be vitiated and as the principles of natural justice have not been followed, there is no need for me to go into the question as to whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are per verse or what should be the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. 13. The respondent bank will have to prove the misconduct alleged against the petitioner by leading evidence before the Labour Court. After such evidence is led, the Labour Court will have to consider whether the punishment of dismissal was proper. 14. The order of the Labour Court dated 5-9-1994 is set aside. All other impugned orders are also set aside. The application is remanded back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh. Since this is an old matter, the Labour Court shall give precedence to this application and decide the same by 31st October, 2004. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. 15. Writ to go down immediately. Record and proceeding to be sent back forthwith. 16. Mr. Shastri, seeks stay of this order. Stay refused. Order accordingly. -----