ORDER These are two appeals under Section 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'. One appeal is by the employer against that part of the order of the Labour Court by which applicant Nawab Khan has been reinstated in service. The other appeal is by the employee against that part of the order of the Labour Court by which back wages have been disallowed. 2. It is not in dispute that applicant Nawab Khan was working as Driver in non-applicant Gwalior Rayon and Silk Manufacturing Weaving Company Limited, Staple Fibre Division, Birlagram, Nagda, which is now known as Grasim Industries Limited, Staple 1 Fibre Division, Birlagram, Nagda. He was working for four years as a permanent employee. He was served with the charge-sheet dated June 12, 1984 (Exhibit P-13). The charge against the applicant was that on June 10, 19842 at about 2.30 A.M. he dashed Car No. D.E.A.-6391 against a wall near C.S. 2 resulting in the damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 10,000. Shri Abde Ali was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The applicant submitted reply to the charge-sheet and that is Exhibit P-15. The defence of the applicant was that at the time of accident the vehicle was actually being driven by Shri Chaturbhuj Dube, who was an officer of the company. The enquiry officer recorded the evidence of both the sides. Chaturbhuj Dube, D.W.1 and V.K. Chauhan, D.W.2 were examined as witnesses' of the management. 10 They were cross-examined by the defence representative engaged by the applicant. Four defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant. They were Kailash Chandra, P.W.1, Govind Singh, P.W.2, Guman Singh, P.W.3 and Amar Singh, P.WA. The applicant gave his own evidence also in the domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report and that is Exhibit P-17. The enquiry officer held that the applicant was to driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at about 2.30 A.M. on June 10, 1984 and he dashed this vehicle against a wall causing damage to the vehicle. The applicant was dismissed from service by order dated July 1984 (Exhibit P-14 and Exhibit 0-21). The charge-sheet dated June 12, 1984 (Exhibit P-13) was signed by Shri K1shorilal as "authorised signatory." It is admitted that he was also the Factory Manager. The applicant was dismissed from service by order dated July 1984 (Exhibit P-14 and Exhibit 0-21). The charge-sheet dated June 12, 1984 (Exhibit P-13) was signed by Shri K1shorilal as "authorised signatory." It is admitted that he was also the Factory Manager. The order dated July 5, 1984 (Exhibit P-14) was also issued by Shri Kishorilal. He signed on this order as "authorised signatory." It is also admitted that the applicant was appointed by Shri Kishorilal. 3. The applicant's case is that the It charge-sheet and the order by which the applicant was dismissed from service were issued by the authorised signatory and he was not competent to do so. According to the applicant, the accident was caused by Shri. Chaturbhuj Dube and he has been wrongly hold to be guilty for causing the accident. He has pleaded that the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer is perverse. 4. The reply of the non-applicant is that Kishorilal was also the Factory Manager merely because he used the words "authorised signatory" below his signature on the chagesheet the dismissal order, it cannot be held that they were issued by the person who was not competent to do so. The accident was actually caused by applicant and that has been proved in the domestic enquiry. There is no perversity in the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer. That is based on appreciation of evidence of both the sides and such finding cannot be disturbed by the Court. It has been stated that the employer cannot keep such a Driver in the employment who has been found to be negligent in driving the vehicle. 5. The Labour Court by interim order dated May 18, 2006 held the domestic enquiry invalid on grounds, (i) The Charge-sheet and 4 the dismissal order were signed by Shri Kishori1al as authorised signatory and not as a Manager. The Labour Court held that this is contrary to the provisions made in the Standing Orders. The second ground is that finding of the enquiry officer "appears to be perverse." The Labour Court has not given reasons holding the finding of the enquiry officer as perverse. The Labour Court gave opportunity to employer to produce the evidence to prove charge against the applicant. The second ground is that finding of the enquiry officer "appears to be perverse." The Labour Court has not given reasons holding the finding of the enquiry officer as perverse. The Labour Court gave opportunity to employer to produce the evidence to prove charge against the applicant. It was stated by employer that witnesses Chaturbhuj Dube and Chauhan have died and the enquiry officer also died as the case remained pending before Labour Court for about 22 years. As no evidence was led by the employer to prove the misconduct of the applicant, he has been reinstated in service by the impugned order dated July 10, 2007. 6. In these appeals, the learned counsel for non-applicant employer has been heard. The counsel for the applicant has submitted his argument in writing. These have been considered by this Court. 7. SSO 12(4)(a) framed under the M.P. 15 Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1961 provides: "The manager or other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall give to the employee charge-sheet clearly setting forth the misconduct charged and the circumstances appearing against him and requiring his explanation. The word "Manager" is defined in SSO 1(a) means if the undertaking is a factory, a person nominated as Manager under the Factories Act, 1948 or a person whom an undertaking nominate as Manager for the purpose of the standing orders and includes a person authorised by him. In the present case, it is submitted that Kishorilal was the Factory Manager and he was also the Manager under the Standing Orders. The only defect which is pointed out by the applicant is that under his signature in the charge-sheet and the dismissal order the words "authorised signatory have been mentioned instead of "Manager." The substance of the order has to be seen. Kishorilal was the Factory Manager and, therefore, his signing the charge-sheet and the dismissal order as authorised signatory cannot be held to be fatal to the domestic enquiry. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the charge-sheet and the dismissal order were issued by the person who was not authorised to do so. The Factory Manager can also be said to be the authorised signatory. At any rate, this was a slight irregularity and a mountain cannot be made out of a molehill. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the charge-sheet and the dismissal order were issued by the person who was not authorised to do so. The Factory Manager can also be said to be the authorised signatory. At any rate, this was a slight irregularity and a mountain cannot be made out of a molehill. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry suffers from illegality because the charge-sheet and the dismissal order were not issued by the Manager, is not correct. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it must be held that the charge-sheet and the dismissal order were issued by the authorised person who was admittedly the Factory Manager and who had signed on these documents as authorised signatory." 8. The other grounds on which the domestic enquiry has been held to be invalid by the Labour Court is that the finding of the enquiry officer "appears to be perverse." The reasons for holding the finding of the enquiry officer as perverse have not been given by the Labour Court. It was necessary for the Labour Court to demonstrate how the finding of the enquiry officer in light of the evidence on record was perverse. The enquiry proceedings which have been marked as Exhibits D-l to D-21 have been perused by this Court. Chaturbhuj Dube, D.W.1, has deposed in the 20 domestic enquiry that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He had no knowledge of the accident in the night. He came to the factory next day at 8.30 A.M. and then he was told that the applicant has caused the accident. He has denied the suggestion that he requested the applicant to take the responsibility of the accident upon himself. The evidence of V.K. Chauhan, D.W.2, who was Conveyance Incharge, is very important. He has deposed that on June 10, 1984 III the night he was informed by applicant Nawab Khan that he has caused the accident to Car No. 6391 which he was driving. This witness has further stated that the applicant told him that the vehicle was involved with the accident because he felt drowsiness while driving the vehicle. According to this witness, he reached the spot of the accident within 15-20 minutes and again the applicant told him that he has caused the accident. This witness has further stated that the applicant told him that the vehicle was involved with the accident because he felt drowsiness while driving the vehicle. According to this witness, he reached the spot of the accident within 15-20 minutes and again the applicant told him that he has caused the accident. The witness is firm on this point that the applicant did not say that the accident was caused by Shri Chaturbhuj Dube. There is another witness Govind Singh, P.W. 2 who was examined in the domestic enquiry by the applicant in his defence. He has deposed that the applicant told him that he has caused the accident and he has informed Shri Chauhan on telephone about this accident. This witness has further repeated that it is the applicant who told him that he himself caused the accident. There are three other witnesses of the applicant but they have not said that Chaturbhuj Dube was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Applicant Nawab Khan, P.W. 5 has admitted in his evidence that he had informed Shri Chauhan that he has caused the accident but he did so at the behest of Shri Chaturbhuj Dube. The applicant has stated that he had submitted a report on June 10, 1984 itself in the factory and that is marked as Exhibit P-12 in which he had mentioned that the accident was caused by Shri Chaturbhuj Dube. 9. Thus there were two versions before the enquiry officer about the accident. The enquiry officer believed the witnesses of the Management. He placed reliance upon the evidence of V.K. Chauhan, D.W.2 who was informed by the applicant that the accident was caused by him. The enquiry officer further found that the evidence of Govind Singh, P.W.2, who was examined as witness by the applicant himself, proves beyond doubt that the accident was caused by the applicant. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Govind Singh, P.W.2. Thus, there was definite evidence before the enquiry officer that the accident was caused by the applicant. The finding of the enquiry officer on the basis of such evidence was not open to interference by the Court. It cannot at all be branded as "perverse" as the Labour Court has done so. The Labour Court has also not expressed definite view that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse. The finding of the enquiry officer on the basis of such evidence was not open to interference by the Court. It cannot at all be branded as "perverse" as the Labour Court has done so. The Labour Court has also not expressed definite view that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse. Merely saying that It "appears to be perverse" is not proper. 10. The Supreme Court has held in several cases that the appreciation of evidence by the enquiry officer cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that the finding is perverse. In High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, AIR 2000 SC 22 : (2000) 1 SCC 416 it has been held: "The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the Court." Again it has been held by the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, AIR 1999 SC 2407 : (1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999-II-LLJ-682: "Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained." The same view has been reiterated very recently in U.B. Gadhe v. G.M, Gujarat Ambuja Cement Private Limited, AIR 2008 SC 99 . 11. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained." The same view has been reiterated very recently in U.B. Gadhe v. G.M, Gujarat Ambuja Cement Private Limited, AIR 2008 SC 99 . 11. In the present case, there was evidence before the enquiry officer acting upon which a reasonable person could hold that the applicant was negligent in driving the car and causing the accident. 12. The two grounds on which the domestic enquiry has been held to be invalid by the Labour Court by order dated May 18, 2006 are not made out. Therefore, that order of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. That order has been specifically challenged by the non-applicant employer in its appeal. 13. In the order dated July 10, 2007 the Labour Court has held that no evidence was adduced by the employer to prove the charge against the applicant before it. It has been submitted by the employer that the enquiry officer and the two witnesses of the management, who were examined in the domestic enquiry, have died as the case remained pending before the Labour Court for about 22 years and, therefore, the evidence in support of the charge could not be given before the Labour Court. The domestic enquiry has I been held to be valid and proper by this Court and the charge against the applicant has been proved in the domestic enquiry. 14. The next question is about punishment. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the punishment is highly disproportionate. On the other hand, It is submitted that the applicant caused accident to the vehicle by dashing it against a wall and caused damage of Rs. 10,000 to the vehicle. It is for the employer to decide which kind of Driver he wants to keep in his employment. There is nothing wrong if the employer does not want to keep such a Driver in his employment who has been found to be negligent. The Court cannot impose such a negligent Driver on the employer. It is for the employer to decide what kind of dexterity, adroitness or skill he should expect from his Driver. There is nothing wrong if the employer does not want to keep such a Driver in his employment who has been found to be negligent. The Court cannot impose such a negligent Driver on the employer. It is for the employer to decide what kind of dexterity, adroitness or skill he should expect from his Driver. In the present case, the applicant was engaged for taking the officers of the company from one place to other and if the employer does not want to keep such a Driver in his employment, the Court cannot direct the employer to continue him in his employment. Recently, it has been held by the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Limited v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433 : 2007-II-LLJ-128: "The consistent view of this Court is that in the absence of a finding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge established, the Labour Court should not interfere with the punishment." 15. In the result, the appeal of the employer is allowed. The impugned orders dated May 18, 2006 and July 10, 2007 of the Labour Court are set aside. The application of the applicant under Section 3 1 (3) of the Act for reinstatement in service and for back wages is' rejected. The appeal filed by the employee is also dismissed.