( 1 ) THE scope of interference with the order of the Industrial Tribunal in connection with an industrial dispute relating to dismissal of the workman under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court is very limited. ( 2 ) THE powers of the High Court to interfere with such an order of the industrial Tribunal is circumscribed by various limitations as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly in various decisions. ( 3 ) REAPPRAISAL and/or re-examination of evidence led in disciplinary proceeding by the High Court in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction was always discarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ( 4 ) SINCE the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are the sole judges of facts, the adequacy and reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) JUDICIAL review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the High Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which falls squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority. ( 6 ) IN spite of the aforesaid restrictions, the power of the High Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in Article 226 of the Constitution of india, has been recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain cases where the findings arrived at by the inferior Tribunal are perverse and not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest of injustice. ( 7 ) HERE is the case where the order of the Enquiry Officer has been challenged on the ground of perversity. Perverse finding in legal parlance means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. A wrong finding is not necessarily a perverse finding. ( 7 ) HERE is the case where the order of the Enquiry Officer has been challenged on the ground of perversity. Perverse finding in legal parlance means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. A wrong finding is not necessarily a perverse finding. A finding cannot be said to be perverse merely because it is possible to take a different view of the evidence. Merely because the Tribunal has drawn certain adverse inferences or conclusions from the evidence-on-record, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Tribunal was partial or biased or that the findings are perverse. The reasons given by the Tribunal may not be very cogent or logical but such findings cannot be called into question as arbitrary, perverse or is actuated by bias. ( 8 ) KEEPING in mind the aforesaid restrictions on the Court's power of interference, this Court will have to consider the validity and/or legality of the order of dismissal of the petitioners which was passed on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 11th May, 1998 in connection with the domestic enquiry with regard to the chargesheet dated 28th November, 1998 issued by Bata India Ltd. to the petitioners. ( 9 ) MR. Mallick, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenged the legality of the report of the Enquiry Officer on the ground of perversity as the Enquiry Officer, while coming to his conclusion, did not take into consideration the most vital part of the evidence of S. N. Lahiri, P. W. 2. According to Mr. Mallick, non-consideration of the evidence of the char gesheeted employees also makes the conclusion perverse. Mr. Mallick contended that placing reliance on indirect and/or inferential evidence leaving direct evidence beyond consideration is the other example of perversity in the findings of the enquiry Officer. ( 10 ) MR. Mallick further submitted that if the conclusion which was arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is found to be perverse, then this Court can certainly interfere with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. ( 11 ) BY referring to section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, Mr. ( 10 ) MR. Mallick further submitted that if the conclusion which was arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is found to be perverse, then this Court can certainly interfere with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. ( 11 ) BY referring to section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, Mr. Mallick submitted that Tribunal is clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by the employer established the misconduct alleged against the workman. Mr. Mallick contended that the Tribunal, instead of restricting its consideration within the aforesaid bounds, went a step further by recording its own findings to support the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding misconduct of the chargesheeted employees. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mallick, the findings of the Enquiry Officer does not merge with the findings of the Tribunal. As such if the findings of the Enquiry officer is found to be perverse, then interference will be inevitable notwithstanding the sound reasons given by the Tribunal either in its order dated 15th July, 1999 on the preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry or in the award passed by the Tribunal on 8th September, 1999. ( 13 ) MR. Sengupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent company (employer), contradicted the said submission of Mr. Mallick by referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of F. T. and R. Co. vs. Management, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 , wherein it was held that the Tribunal under the amended provision of section 11a of the said Act, is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct; but also to differ from the said findings if a proper case is made out. It was further held therein that what was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so; and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter. ( 14 ) RELYING upon the said decision Mr. Sengupta submitted that the tribunal's satisfaction is the ultimate satisfaction and as such interference with the order of Enquiry Officer cannot be made on the ground of its perversity without considering the findings of the Tribunal. According to Mr. ( 14 ) RELYING upon the said decision Mr. Sengupta submitted that the tribunal's satisfaction is the ultimate satisfaction and as such interference with the order of Enquiry Officer cannot be made on the ground of its perversity without considering the findings of the Tribunal. According to Mr. Sengupta, since the Tribunal's award is the ultimate order, this Court will have to examine the award of the Tribunal to find out the justification of the decision of the employer in awarding such punishment. ( 15 ) THUS, Mr. Sengupta invited the attention of this Court to the findings which were arrived at by the Tribunal while passing the award. By placing the entire award of the Tribunal before this Court, Mr. Sengupta submitted that there was no perversity in the findings of the Tribunal as the Tribunal, while passing the said award, considered the entire evidence-on-record including the vital part of the evidence of the P. W. 2 which, according to the petitioners, was not considered by the Enquiry Officer resulting its finding unworthy of acceptance because of its perversity. ( 16 ) BEFORE entering into the other part of the submission of Mr. Mallick on the issue of disproportionate punishment awarded against the petitioners, this court thinks it fit to consider the legality and/or validity of the findings of the tribunal on the issue regarding misconduct of the chargesheeted employees, viz. the petitioners herein as this Court, by relying upon the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of F. T. andr Co. vs. Management (supra) holds that interference as called for in this writ petition cannot be made unless perversity in the findings of the Tribunal in its award is traced out. ( 17 ) LET me now consider the propriety of the said award in the aforesaid context. ( 18 ) THE following charges were framed by the employer against the petitioners for their acts of major misconduct for which they rendered themselves liable to disciplinary action under section 2la (d) and (k) of the Certified Standing order and Rules applicable to Batanagar factory :"sec. 21a (d) :. . . . . . . . . drunkenness, riotous, disorderly behaviour within the factory premises and/or while on duty. Sec. 21a (j) :. . . . . 21a (d) :. . . . . . . . . drunkenness, riotous, disorderly behaviour within the factory premises and/or while on duty. Sec. 21a (j) :. . . . . anywhere within the company's estate committing or inciting others to commit breaches of law or rules of the company. Sec. 21a (k) :. . . . . . . . . alone or in combination with others, anywhere within the Company's estate causing or calculating to cause physical pain or injury to other employees or approved residents. " ( 19 ) THE aforesaid charges were framed on the basis of an incident which allegedly occurred on 26th November, 1996 at about 8. 20 a. m. in the chamber of mr. S. N. Lahiri, Chief Welfare Officer. On 26th November, 1996 at about 8. 20 a. m. , the chargesheeted employees, while on sick leave, along with a group of person forcibly entered the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri, Chief Welfare Officer while he was having a discussion with Mr. Kamal Mukherjee on certain official matters. One of the chargesheeted employees viz. , Mr. Krishnendu Goswami asked Mr. Mukherjee to go out of the room and closed the door from inside. Thereafter all on a sudden Sri Goswami started abusing Mr. Lahiri using filthy language. Mr. Goswami then along with the other two chargesheeted employees instigated others to catch hold of Mr. Lahiri's hair, shake his head vigorously and catch hold of his neck with an attempt to strangulate him which they did. Further, on their instigation not only Mr. Lahiri was physically assaulted with fist but also important official letters/documents lying on his table were destroyed and they threatened Mr. Lahiri with dire consequences including murder. Mr. Goswami also told Mr. Lahiri to withdraw his involvement from bwsbs and leave the Company or face the dire consequences. ( 20 ) ALL these incidents allegedly had taken place in the chamber Mr. S. N. Lahiri on 26th November, 1996 within five minutes from 8. 20 a. m. to 8. 25 a. m. ( 21 ) MR. Mallick pointed out from the evidence of the P. W's that the aforesaid incidents allegedly took place in the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri when he alone was there. As such apart from Mr. S. N. Lahiri on 26th November, 1996 within five minutes from 8. 20 a. m. to 8. 25 a. m. ( 21 ) MR. Mallick pointed out from the evidence of the P. W's that the aforesaid incidents allegedly took place in the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri when he alone was there. As such apart from Mr. Lahiri the other witnesses had no direct knowledge about the incidents which allegedly had taken place in the chamber of Mr. Lahiri on the same date. Of course, Mr. Mukherjee, P. W. 1, was admittedly present in the chamber of Mr. Lahiri at the time when the petitioners entered the chamber of Mr. Lahiri but since Mr. Mukherjee admittedly had left before the aforesaid incidents allegedly occurred, Mr. Mukherjee had no direct knowledge with regard to the aforesaid incidents excepting the entry of the petitioners in the chamber of Mr. Lahiri. ( 22 ) IN this context, Mr. Mallick submitted that the evidence of all other witnesses from the side of the employer excepting the evidence of P. W. 2, is irrelevant to the issue involved. Mr. Mallick, thus, submitted that when direct evidence on the incidents is available on record, the Enquiry Officer ought not to have taken note of the indirect evidence and/or inferential evidences of the other witnesses of the employer who admittedly had no direct knowledge about the incidents which occurred on the said date in the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri. ( 23 ) MR. Mallick pointed out from the enquiry report that without taking note of the most vital part of the direct evidence of Mr. Lahiri, P. W. 2, on the issue, the Enquiry Officer placed much reliance upon the indirect evidence of the other witnesses viz. P. W. 1 and P. W, 3 for coming to the conclusion about the commission of misconduct by the petitioners. The most vital part of the evidence of Mr. Lahiri, P. W. 2, which was not taken note of by the Enquiry officer, as pointed out Mr. Mallick, are as follows : cross-examination of P. W. 2 recorded on 14th January, 1997 :q 22. Did Sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra Singh and Dulal Kar abuse you? ans. No, they did not personally abuse me. Q 23. Did they assault you ? ans. No, they did not. Q 24. Did they threat you ? ans. Mallick, are as follows : cross-examination of P. W. 2 recorded on 14th January, 1997 :q 22. Did Sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra Singh and Dulal Kar abuse you? ans. No, they did not personally abuse me. Q 23. Did they assault you ? ans. No, they did not. Q 24. Did they threat you ? ans. No, they did not personally threat me. Q 25. Did they instigate anybody to abuse, assault or threat you ? ans. No. ( 24 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mallick, this part of the evidence of Sri Lahiri, P. W. 2 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioners were not guilty of misconduct of any of the charges levelled against them. ( 25 ) MR. Mallick further pointed out from the enquiry report that the evidence of the petitioners was not taken into consideration at all by the Enquiry Officer. ( 26 ) MR. Mallick further pointed out that the Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion by relying upon the inferential evidences of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 who admittedly had no direct knowledge about the incident. ( 27 ) MR. Mallick further contended that when S. N. Lahiri, P. W. 2, who has direct knowledge about the incident categorically stated in his evidence that the petitioner did neither personally abuse Mr. Lahiri, nor assaulted Mr. Lahiri nor personally threat Mr. Lahiri nor instigated anybody to abuse, assault or threat Mr. Lahiri, the Enquiry Officer should have held that the allegations regarding misconduct were not proved. ( 28 ) MR. Mallick further contended that entry of the petitioner in the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri who was the Secretary of BWSBS for discussing a vital issue regarding BWSBS, cannot be held as forcible entry. According to Mr. Mallick, the finding of disorderly behaviour of the petitioners in the chamber of mr. S. N. Lahiri is also based on no evidence. Ransacking of the office and destruction of the important office file, according to Mr. Mallick, is also based on surmise and conjecture as there is no corroborative evidence on the said issue. Mr. Mallick further submitted that the evidence of instigation to assault mr. Lahiri is also absent. ( 29 ) RELYING upon a Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Collector of Custom vs. Biswanath Mukherjee, reported in 1974 CLJ page 251, Mr. Mr. Mallick further submitted that the evidence of instigation to assault mr. Lahiri is also absent. ( 29 ) RELYING upon a Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Collector of Custom vs. Biswanath Mukherjee, reported in 1974 CLJ page 251, Mr. Mallick submitted that the decision of the Enquiry Officer was absolutely perverse as it satisfies the tests regarding perversity as laid down in the said decision. ( 30 ) ACCORDINGLY, Mr. Mallick invited this Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal which was arrived at on 15th July, 1999 on the preliminary point of validity of the domestic enquiry as the Tribunal upheld such perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer by holding that domestic enquiry was held fairly, properly and legally and there is no illegality and/or perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer. ( 31 ) MR. Sengupta refuted such submission of Mr. Mallick by drawing my attention to the findings which were arrived at by the Tribunal while passing the ultimate award which is under challenge. Mr. Sengupta pointed out that the Tribunal while passing the award took into consideration the entire materials-on-record including that part of the evidence of P. W. 2 which according to the petitioners were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal while passing the order on 15th July, 1999. ( 32 ) MR. Sengupta further submitted that the rule of preponderance of probabilities is followed in domestic enquiry. ( 33 ) RELYING upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of formica India Division Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra), MX. Sengupta submitted that it is well-settled that in domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. ( 34 ) MR. Sengupta further submitted that credibility of the witnesses, viz. , p. W. 1 and P. W. 3 cannot be ignored simply because of the fact that they had no direct knowledge about the incident. ( 35 ) THE said witnesses met Mr. Lahiri in his chamber immediately after the incident had occurred. They witnessed the disordered condition of the chamber of Mr. , p. W. 1 and P. W. 3 cannot be ignored simply because of the fact that they had no direct knowledge about the incident. ( 35 ) THE said witnesses met Mr. Lahiri in his chamber immediately after the incident had occurred. They witnessed the disordered condition of the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri immediately after the said incident. The destroyed and/or torn office files scattered here and there in the chamber of Mr. Lahiri was also witnessed by the said witnesses. The entry of the petitioners with 10 to 15 persons without permission in the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri when he was busy in discussing with Mr. Mukherjee was also witnessed by Mr. Mukherjee, p. W. 1. As such, the evidence of those witnesses cannot be ignored altogether. ( 36 ) MR. Sengupta further contended that instigation has a special meaning here as union leader remained silent when his other accomplice assaulted Mr. Lahiri in his presence. According to Mr. Sengupta, if the entire sequence of events viz. , forcible entry of the union leader with a group, assault on Mr. Lahiri by some of the members of the group in the presence of the union leaders, union leader making no attempt to save Mr. Lahiri from physical assault and at last leaving the chamber of Mr. S. N. Lahiri in group, are taken into consideration, no one can come to the conclusion that the findings which were arrived at either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Tribunal are perverse. ( 37 ) MR. Sengupta further contended that it is not a case where findings of the Tribunal are based on no evidence. Rather it is a case where findings are based on evidence : some are direct evidence, some are hearsay evidence and/ or inferential evidence. Mr. Sengupta, thus, contended that when consideration of the hearsay evidence and/or inferential evidences is permissible in case of domestic enquiry, this Court should not interfere with the findings of the tribunal by developing allergy to hearsay evidence. ( 38 ) MR. Sengupta further pointed out that even error in law and/or error in fact in the findings of the Tribunal cannot be corrected by the High Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. ( 38 ) MR. Sengupta further pointed out that even error in law and/or error in fact in the findings of the Tribunal cannot be corrected by the High Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The findings which have been arrived at by the tribunal, if based on evidence, cannot be substituted by another set of possible view by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kapoor vs. Union of India and Anr. , reported in 1998 (9) SCC page 47, in this regard. ( 39 ) MR. Sengupta submitted that under such circumstances interference with the decision of the Tribunal is not warranted on the ground of perversity. ( 40 ) BEFORE proceeding further, I must record that a very cryptic reply was given by each of the petitioners in answer to charges levelled against them. The petitioners simply denied the charges in one sentence by stating that the allegations made against them are baseless and motivated. Denial must be specific. Evasive denial is no denial at all. Such evasive denial amounts to admission of the charges levelled against them. ( 41 ) THE way in which the petitioners cross-examined the P. W. 2, Sri s. N. Lahiri suggests that the petitioners wanted to conceal the truth for saving themselves at any costs. The question Nos. 4 to 18 which were put to the P. W. 2 for answer as recorded in the proceeding on 14. 1. 1997, gives clear indication that the petitioners wanted to avoid their liability by making an attempt to prove that as if Mr. S. N. Lahiri was not in office on 26th November, 1996 at the relevant time between 8. 20 a. m. to 8. 25 a. m. This desperate attempt on the part of the petitioners leads this Court to believe that the petitioners concealed the truth to avoid punishment. ( 42 ) THIS Court cannot restrict its consideration to the legality of the enquiry report only. 20 a. m. to 8. 25 a. m. This desperate attempt on the part of the petitioners leads this Court to believe that the petitioners concealed the truth to avoid punishment. ( 42 ) THIS Court cannot restrict its consideration to the legality of the enquiry report only. Rather this Court extends its consideration to find out the alleged perversity in the order of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue as well as in the award passed by the Tribunal as the Tribunal's satisfaction ultimately decides the matter, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of F. T. and R. Co. vs. Management (supra), the relevant of which is set out hereunder :"32. We will first consider cases where an employer has held a proper and valid domestic enquiry before passing the order of punishment. Previously the Tribunal had no power to interfere with its finding of misconduct recorded in the domestic enquiry unless one of other infirmities pointed out by this court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. , 1958 SCR 667 : AIR 1958 SC 130 , existed. The conduct of disciplinary proceeding and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an inference of victimization or unfair labour practice. This position, in our view, has now been changed by section 11 A. The words 'in the course of the adjudication proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified' clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer established the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. , 1958 SCR 667 : AIR 1958 SC 130 , case can no longer be invoked by an employer. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. , 1958 SCR 667 : AIR 1958 SC 130 , case can no longer be invoked by an employer. The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct: but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so; and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter. " ( 43 ) IT is well-settled that evidence cannot be construed by reading a part of the evidence. Evidence must be read as a whole to find out its reliability. If the answer of the P. W. 2 to the four questions being question Nos. 22 to 25 in cross-examination recorded on 14. 1. 1997, is only taken up for consideration in isolation of the entirety of his evidence, then it is no doubt true that Mr. Mallick's contention with regard to the perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as of the Tribunal in its preliminary order, is established. But this court cannot subscribe the same view of Mr. Mallick as it is well-settled that the evidence of the witness should be read as a whole to assess the credibility of the witness and to find out the substance of the evidence in proof of the dispute at issue. ( 44 ) ON perusal of the award of the Tribunal this Court finds that the Tribunal took into consideration the entire materials-on-record. Even the vital part of the evidence of P. W. 2 as referred to above was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. After making an overall assessment of the materials-on-record, the Tribunal came to a finding that the charge of misconduct viz. , disorderly behaviour of the workman causing indiscipline in the office premises, instigation to assault the Chief Welfare Officer, ransacking and/or destroying the office files have been proved against the petitioners. The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Tribunal is not absolutely an absurd conclusion. This Court cannot hold that no reasonable person could ever had arrived at such conclusion in similar circumstances. ( 45 ) IN fact, Mr. The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Tribunal is not absolutely an absurd conclusion. This Court cannot hold that no reasonable person could ever had arrived at such conclusion in similar circumstances. ( 45 ) IN fact, Mr. Mallick has not pointed out any perversity in the award of the Tribunal, Mr. Mallick restricted his submission to the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer. But this Court cannot restrict its consideration to the findings of the Enquiry Officer alone for the reasons as aforesaid. That apart, it is well-settled that if the conclusion is correct and if such conclusion can be supported by the materials-on-record, then conclusion which was so arrived at on weak findings, cannot be disturbed. ( 46 ) HERE the Tribunal being the ultimate forum has supplied its own findings which are all based on record. As such the findings of the Tribunal which supports the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer cannot be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction, as this Court while considering this writ petition does not act as a Court of Appeal, rather it exercises its power of judicial review to find out as to whether the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority by following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice or not. ( 47 ) LET me now record hereunder the relevant part of the evidence of p. W. 2. : s. N. Lahiri, P. W. 2, in his examination-in-chief stated as follows :"q. 17. Did that group led by Mr. Krishnendu Goswami, Mr. Dulal Kar and mr. Nagendra Singh start discussion with you after departure of Mr. Kamal mukherjee ? ans. Immediately after departure of Mr. Kamal Mukherjee, Sri Krishnendu goswami identified other two gentlemen, namely Sri Nagendra Singh and sri Dulal Kar as union executives including himself and also told me that they are the employees of the company and he (Mr. Goswami) raised certain issues regarding B. W. S. B. S. with a voice of protest. Q. 18. When Mr. Krishnendu finished his discussion with you? ans. The discussion was on. Suddenly two of the aforesaid groups came forward by my right-hand side and one of them held my hair in grip and shook violently using abusive languages and another held my neck in grip and turned aside pressingly. Q. 18. When Mr. Krishnendu finished his discussion with you? ans. The discussion was on. Suddenly two of the aforesaid groups came forward by my right-hand side and one of them held my hair in grip and shook violently using abusive languages and another held my neck in grip and turned aside pressingly. They threatened me to murder me if I do not retreat from B. W. S. B. S. and leave the job. One of them hit my belly too and threatened me to face the dire consequences. While doing so one of the said group stood on his back against the door of my room preventing any entrance from outside during this operation. Before leaving my chamber they took my office key and threw at me. Other official important papers lying on my table torn into pieces and threw at me, some fell on my table and some on the floor. After this, the group including those three union executives hurriedly left my chamber in a lump. Thus I was physically assaulted and my office was ransacked. Q. 19. Can you tell me the strength of the group ? ans. Approximately the group consisted of 10/15 in number including these three union executives. Q. 21. Did you seek help from any one while you were being assaulted and your office being ransacked ? ans. Yes, I sought help from them while I was being assaulted and my office was being ransacked to save me and stop such nuisance going on but they did not pay any heed on my word and prevent them from assaulting me and ransacking my office. Q. 23. Did Mr. Krishnendu, Sri Dulal Kar and Sri Nagendra Singh assaulted you and ransacked your office ? ans. No, they did not personally assault me or ransack my office but the group led by those three union executives assaulted me and ransacked my office. Q. 24. Did the incident (assault and ransacking) happen because of instigation on the part of three union executives as you refer before ? ans. As I mentioned earlier from the sequence of events it appeared that the incident took place under the leadership of the aforesaid three union executives. " ( 48 ) THE said witness, in his cross-examination also answered the question nos. 20, 26, 27, 54 and 55 in the following manner :"q. 20. ans. As I mentioned earlier from the sequence of events it appeared that the incident took place under the leadership of the aforesaid three union executives. " ( 48 ) THE said witness, in his cross-examination also answered the question nos. 20, 26, 27, 54 and 55 in the following manner :"q. 20. When you were busy in discussion with Mr. Kamal Mukherjee, how could you know that S/sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra Singh and Dulal kar led the other people in you chamber? ans. While I was discussing some official matter with Mr. Kamal Mukherjee at about 8. 20 a. m. on 26. 11. 1996 S/sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra singh and Dulal Kar all on a sudden entered slap into my room they came in a body while the aforesaid three union executives were in the front. Sri goswami also expressed that they along with the group have come to me (Lahiri) as employees of the factory and Sri Goswami was the spokesman of the group. Subsequently when they left my room after the incident of assault and ransacking of my office they left in a body. The sequence of incidents led me to believe that the group who assaulted me and ransacked my office was led by these three union executives. Q. 26. Did S/sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra Singh and Dulal Kar ransack your office ? ans. Yes, they certainly ransacked my office along with the group after this while going out Sri Goswami took the leadership to take the group out-of my chamber with intimidation of dire consequences including murder if I do not withdraw myself from BWSBS and leave the job, thereafter all of them left my room briskly. Q. 27. Did S/sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra Singh and Dulal Kar personally ransack your office ? ans. I reiterate that Sri Goswami along with Dulal Kar and Nagendra Singh ransacked my office in combination with others and as a result all my important letters, documents were destroyed and thrown at me. Some fell on my table and some fell on the floor. Q. 54. Can you recall that on 26. 11. 96 S/sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra nath Singh and Dulal Kar went to your chamber for discussion on what subject ? ans. I distinctly recall that on 26. 11. 96 at about 8. Some fell on my table and some fell on the floor. Q. 54. Can you recall that on 26. 11. 96 S/sri Krishnendu Goswami, Nagendra nath Singh and Dulal Kar went to your chamber for discussion on what subject ? ans. I distinctly recall that on 26. 11. 96 at about 8. 20 a. m. a group of people led by Sri Krishnendu Goswami, Dulal Kar and Nagendra came to my chamber when I was discussing on official with Sri Kamal Mukherjee. Sri goswami introduced other two union executives including himself. Sri goswami as a spokesman for and on behalf of the group started raising certain issues concerning BWSBS with a voice of protest after departure of sri Kamal Mukherjee. Q. 55. Did you call any one of your officers at that time in your chamber ? ans. I could not get any opportunity to call any officer working under me since immediately after raising the issues of BWSBS in high pitch tune of voice of protest a few from the group led, motivated and incited by them came forward and assaulted me as detailed earlier and they also ransacked my office using abusive filthy languages and threatening with dire consequences. Moreover while I was being assaulted and my office was being ransacked I sought for their help because I expected their protection since the union executives were known to me. They not only protected me from assaulting or ransacking my office they did not prevent them from assaulting me and ransacking my office. Within a few minute they took the leadership to take out the group out of my chamber and left the place in a body hurriedly. " ( 49 ) THUS, if the aforesaid evidence of the said witness is taken into consideration along with the answers given by him to the question numbers 22-25 in cross-examination, this Court also finds that the alleged misconduct of the petitioners was proved by P. W. 2 in his examination-in-chief which also remains unshaken in his cross-examination. ( 50 ) THE expression "instigation" has different meaning. It may be direct or indirect. Direct instigation is visible. Indirect instigation is invisible but it can be realised from the circumstantial evidences and/or from the conduct of the instigator. If the union leaders remained silent when such occurrence took place, it goes without saying that they instigated their followers to assault Mr. It may be direct or indirect. Direct instigation is visible. Indirect instigation is invisible but it can be realised from the circumstantial evidences and/or from the conduct of the instigator. If the union leaders remained silent when such occurrence took place, it goes without saying that they instigated their followers to assault Mr. Lahiri and to ransack his office and to destroy the office files. ( 51 ) HERE of course, in the narration of the incidents in the chargesheet, a case of direct instigation was made out. But still then, the parties led their evidences and cross-examined the witnesses of their adversaries on indirect instigation knowing fully well their respective claims. Evidence of indirect instigation from the side of the employer is at galore. Employer's witnesses were cross-examined on this point sufficiently. As such slight variation in the proof of the charge cannot vitiate the trial of the proceeding, as the petitioner's were never taken by surprise regarding proof of such indirect instigation by the employer. ( 52 ) THUS, when such findings were arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the materials-on-record, this Court sitting in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with such findings of the Tribunal on the ground of perversity. ( 53 ) LET me now consider the other submission of Mr. Mallick regarding awarding of punishment against the petitioners which according to Mr. Mallick was disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner. ( 54 ) FOLLOWING decisions were cited by Mr. Sengupta to support the decision of the employer as well as the conclusion which was arrived at by the Tribunal on the scope of interference of the High Court on the issue of punishment: (i) State Bank of India vs. Samarandra Endow, 1994 (2) SCC page 537; (ii) Union of India vs. B. C. Chaturvedy, 1995 (6) SCC page 749; (iii) Indian Oil Corporation vs. Ashok Kr. Arora, 1997 (3) SCC page 72 ( 55 ) ON perusal of the aforesaid decisions this Court finds that the Hon'ble supreme Court in all those decisions uniformly held that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no inherent reason to disallow application of judicial mind to the question of proportionality of punishment/penalty, but then while ceased with this question as a Writ Court, interference is permissible only when the punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate. ( 56 ) WHEN dismissal of an employee for abusing the management in filthily language was maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the punishment/penalty which was awarded against the petitioners in the fact and circumstances hereinabove stated where not only disorderly behaviour of the petitioners causing indiscipline in the office premises were found but also the charge of instigation to assault the Chief Welfare Officer physically causing pain and injury in his body and ransacking and/or destroying the office of the Chief Welfare Officer including the office files were proved against the petitioners. Maintenance of discipline in the place of work is the primary consideration to maintain the work culture in the industry. ( 57 ) UNDER such circumstances, this Court is unable to hold that the punishment awarded against the petitioners is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioners. The writ petition, thus, deserves no merit for consideration. The writ petition, thus, stands rejected. .