Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order passed in W.P.No.16753 of 1996 dated 22.09.2004.) P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.09.2004 made in W.P.No.16753 of 1996, State Express Transport Corporation (Chennai), has filed the above appeal. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The 2nd respondent herein, while working as driver in the appellant Transport Corporation on 23.04.1988 in Route No.332 from Pattukottai to Madras, had taken the vehicle in a zigzag manner for a distance of 4 kms. On the intervention of the passengers, the bus was stopped and the driver was found to be under the influence of alcohol and then, the matter was reported to Pattukottai Police Station. Apart from taking action under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the management Transport Corporation initiated departmental action. After framing necessary charges, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found charges under clauses 16(a) and (j) alone proved. The disciplinary authority, after issuance of second show cause notice, accepted the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a punishment, terminating the workman from service. Since an industrial dispute was pending, the management sought for approval by filing a petition before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. The Industrial Tribunal, after finding three infirmities in the ultimate order of the management, dismissed their claim and rejected the Approval Application. Questioning the said order, the management filed W.P.No.16753 of 1996 before this Court. The learned single Judge, by order dated 22.09.2004, after considering the claim of both parties, concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the management. Not satisfied with the order, the management has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as contesting second respondent. 4. In view of the limited scope, it is unnecessary for us to refer all the factual details. However, it is relevant to note the following three infirmities as pointed out by the Tribunal; (1) The enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders and the formalities provided therein; (2) The material document, namely, medical certificate has not been produced by the management to show that the driver was under the influence of alcohol; and (3) The disciplinary authority has not applied his mind, while imposing punishment. 5. 5. With regard to the first contention, it is not in dispute that as per the Model Standing Order, before imposing punishment, previous service records of the delinquent have to be considered by the management. Rule 17(5) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947, makes it clear that in awarding punishment, the employer shall take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances, that may exist. It is not in dispute that though the management sent show cause notice dated 27.01.1989, admittedly, there is no reference to the previous service records of the workman. The order of the disciplinary authority clearly shows that no reference is made to the previous service records of the workman concerned. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent workman brought to our notice the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in The Management of Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, Pasumalai, Madurai ..vs.. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and others (AIR 1964 MADRAS 51), wherein it has been held as follows: "Where the Standing Order framed in respect of an industry specifically providing that, in awarding punishment for misconduct of a workman the management shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist, having regard to the mandatory nature of the Standing Order, there is no option left to the management to neglect these relevant factors. When these factors have not been taken into consideration by the management while passing an order of dismissal of a workman, such order cannot be sustained". A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Borosil Glass Works Ltd., ..vs.. M.G.Chitale (1974 (II) L.L.J.184) has followed the above decision. It is clear from the decision of this Court, in awarding punishment for misconduct of a workman, it is the duty of the management to take into account not only the gravity of the misconduct but also the previous records. Failure to do so, the final order, namely, dismissal cannot be sustained. In view of the Standing Orders referred to above, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Bombay High Court. Failure to do so, the final order, namely, dismissal cannot be sustained. In view of the Standing Orders referred to above, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Bombay High Court. The said aspect was correctly considered by the Tribunal and accepted by the learned single Judge. On this ground alone, the ultimate order of termination is liable to be set aside. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant management argued that the punishment was proportionate to the proved charges, in view of specific provision in the Standing Orders, we are of the view that the same have to be fully complied with while imposing a punishment. 6. Coming to the second infirmity, as pointed out by the Tribunal, the main charge was that at the relevant date and time, the driver was under the influence of alcohol, which made him to drive the bus in a zigzag manner for a distance of 4 kms. Though the Enquiry Officer has accepted the oral statements of some of the witnesses, the fact remains that the material document, namely, medical certificate with regard to the drunkenness, which was the prime factor, has not been produced and placed before the Enquiry Officer. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the management contended that de hors the medical certificate, they are free to substantiate the charge and according to her, in fact, the 2nd respondent was under the influence of alcohol while driving the bus was proved. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent, irrespective of the statements of certain passengers, the medical certificate regarding consumption of alcohol at the relevant time, is a material document. We accept the conclusion of the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge on this aspect. 7. The third infirmity pointed out by the Tribunal was that though the workman concerned was charge sheeted under clauses 16(a)(j)(c)and(i) of the Standing Orders, the Enquiry Officer has found him guilty only under clauses 16(a) and (j). On the other hand, the Industrial Tribunal has concluded that the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, has stated that the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that all the charges were proved against the delinquent and he accepted the same. On the other hand, the Industrial Tribunal has concluded that the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, has stated that the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that all the charges were proved against the delinquent and he accepted the same. No doubt, learned counsel for the management, by taking us through the order of the disciplinary authority, has submitted that the said authority has merely accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer. The fact remains that the Enquiry Officer has found the workman guilty only under clauses 16(a)and (j); therefore, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority could have specifically stated instead of making a general statement about the decision of the Enquiry Officer. In such circumstances, we accept the conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the order of the learned single Judge. 8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any infirmity or valid ground for interference. On the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent-workman concerned has attained superannuation even in 1999 and in view of the dismissal of the writ appeal filed by the management, the second respondent is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount by the management to the credit of Approval Petition No.5 of 1991 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. The management is also directed to settle all his retirement benefits, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.