JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up on application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this court dated 23rd April, 2007, but with the consent of parties, the matter is finally decided at this stage. 2. Respondent-workman while serving as Conductor was served with the charge sheet for the alleged misconduct on 11.03.1983 and after holding inquiry he was removed from service on 26th April, 1983. The order of penalty inflicted upon him was assailed by filing of a civil suit which was finally decreed on 14th November, 1984 and in compliance thereof, he was reinstated in service on 6th September, 1988. It appears from the record that for the alleged misconduct charge sheet earlier served on 11.03.1983 which finally met with the fate of his reinstatement in service, for the self-same incident and after-his reinstatement on 6th September, 1988, a fresh charge sheet was served in 1997 and after holding inquiry, the respondent-workman was again removed from service on 26th February, 2001. Since some industrial dispute was pending before the Tribunal, as such application was filed by the petitioner-Corporation seeking approval of its action u/s. 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. 3. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the material which came on record prima facie examined procedure adopted in holding inquiry by the petitioner-Corporation with regard to alleged incident of 1983 charge sheet was served in 1997 which has been specifically observed in Para 7 about the material which came on record before the inquiry officer and made to be a basis for holding respondent-workman guilty; finally application seeking permission for approval of their action was rejected by the Tribunal under the order impugned. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the pre-conditions stipulated in Section 33(2)(b) were fully complied with by the Corporation before passing of the said order, as such it could not have been extensively examined with regard to procedure adopted in holding departmental inquiry by the Tribunal with the limited scope available u/s. 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. As such, its an apparent error which the Tribunal has committed in passing of order impugned. 5. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has supported the finding and submits that no interference is called for. 6. As such, its an apparent error which the Tribunal has committed in passing of order impugned. 5. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has supported the finding and submits that no interference is called for. 6. Learned Tribunal has not at all extensively considered, but only examined the procedure which was followed and the material which came on record before the inquiry officer while holding the respondent-workman guilty and apart from it, this fact cannot be ruled out that the charge sheet served for the alleged misconduct of 1983 was finally adjudicated in a civil suit filed by respondent-workman and decreed in his favour. Pursuant to which, he was reinstated and even after reinstatement charge sheet for the alleged misconduct of 1983 was served in 1997 much water flown thereafter of almost 17 years. In Para 7 the evidence which came on record prima facie has also been considered noticed by the inquiry officer. This court finds no infirmity which may call for interference. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******