Judgment :- The writ petitioner is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Divn.II) Limited and aggrieved by the Order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Approval No.52 of 1996 dated 5. 98 in refusing to grant approval for dismissing the first respondent from service the present writ petition has been filed. The first respondent was working as a Conductor. While he was on duty, on 17. 95 in Route No.77B, it was charged that he was in a drunken stage and was unable to perform his duty as a Conductor. The tickets and Trip sheet were filled up by some other conductor and because of this incident there was loss to the Corporation. 2. An enquiry was conducted and in that enquiry a Checking Inspector and a Security Guard were examined as witnesses for the petitioner Management. Though the report given by one M. Subramanian, who is a casual driver, which was marked as Ex.M.3, he was not examined. The Checking Inspector and the Security Guard were not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. But the driver, who gave the report had stated that the first respondent was in a drunken stage and could not discharge his duties. He came and created a ruckus in the Office and another Conductor by name M. Venkatachalam had handed over the cash and book to the Office. This material document though filed in the enquiry, the author of the said statement was not examined. 3. The Tribunal, after notice to the parties, passed an order holding that it was not a fit case to grant approval for the dismissal of the first respondent under Sec.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal gave two reasons. The first was that basic report was not given to him despite a request being made by him. The Tribunal found that non furnishing of report will vitiate the enquiry. 4. Ms. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel for the Corporation brought to the notice of this Court the enquiry Notice dated 28. 95, in which, it was stated that he can inspect the documents in the Office and it was marked and copies will be given to him. Hence the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is erroneous. 5. 4. Ms. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel for the Corporation brought to the notice of this Court the enquiry Notice dated 28. 95, in which, it was stated that he can inspect the documents in the Office and it was marked and copies will be given to him. Hence the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is erroneous. 5. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of the first respondent being found in a drunken condition and in the absence of any credible evidence one cannot presume that a person was in a drunken condition. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Asst. Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Jolarpettai & Ors vs S. Sivagananam (1996 II LLJ 597). In that view of the matter, the Tribunal found that even though there was a medical officer in the petitioner Corporation, he was not subjected to medical examination and the first respondent was not taken to the nearby Government Hospital . In that view the approval was refused. 6. Ms. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel submitted that this is not a criminal trial so as to bring in medical evidence and in a domestic enquiry preponderance of probabilities of the case is sufficient and hence with the available material the charges against the respondent was held proved. 7. The casual driver M. Subramani who also made a written complaint was not examined, even though it was relied upon as Ex.M.3. In the absence of the driver being examined with reference to the conduct of the first respondent, the reliance placed upon the evidence of the Checking Inspector and the Security Guard will have no significance as they are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 8. Though there can be two opinion about the finding. Of the Tribunal, since the petitioner Management had not examined the crucial witness viz., the driver who had given the written complaint, the finding recorded in the enquiry cannot be said to be legal evidence. In that view of the matter there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the second respondent Tribunal. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. 9. During the pendency of the Proceedings, this Court by order dated 23. In that view of the matter there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the second respondent Tribunal. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. 9. During the pendency of the Proceedings, this Court by order dated 23. 99 directed the petitioner Corporation to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-to the credit of A.P.No.52 of 1996 on the file of the 2nd respondent which in turn was directed to invest it in a Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of three years and renewable once in two years thereafter with the Indian Overseas Bank, Esplanade Branch, Chennai and the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on such fixed deposit being made once in three months. The first respondent was also directed to be paid Rs.25,000/- as well as monthly salary of Rs.3,750/- every month till the disposal of the writ petition. 10. Now, the present writ petition is dismissed, the first respondent is at liberty to with draw the amount lying in deposit with the second respondent and also claim arrears of salary. 11. The petitioner Corporation is directed to implement the order of the Industrial Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.