Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash award dated 21.05.2001 in I.D.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2. In the year 1978, he was appointed as Operator. He was served with a charge sheet dated 06.02.1996 wherein he was charged as under: “It has been reported against you that on 6th February, 1996 in ‘A’ shift around 06-45 a.m. you have not followed the orders of your superior, used foul language, physically manhandled and assaulted your superior Mr. K. Satyanarayana, Supervisor. The above alleged acts of yours, if proved, would constitute under the certified standing orders of the Company applicable to you which are reproduced hereunder, and warranting severe disciplinary action to be taken against you.” After following the procedure, respondent No.2 has dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 09.08.1996. The petitioner has questioned the said order by raising an industrial dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that of the Disciplinary Authority on the misconduct of the petitioner. It has, however, modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner from dismissal of service to that of removal. Assailing this award, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Mr. G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet is vague, as it is not stated therein as to the nature of the orders that were made by the petitioner’s superior i.e., Mr. K. Satyanarayana and allegedly not followed by the petitioner and the contents of the alleged foul language used by the petitioner against his superior. He further submitted that the evidence of Mr. K. Satyanarayana has not been corroborated by any of the remaining five witnesses and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority as well as respondent No.1 have committed a serious error in holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. S. Viswanathan ( (2005) 3 SCC 193 ), in support of his submissions. Opposing the above submissions, Mr. C. R. Sridharan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the scope of judicial review does not permit re-appreciation of evidence and the findings rendered based on such evidence. He further submitted that in a disciplinary proceeding, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required and that preponderance of probabilities is sufficient for proving the misconduct of an employee. On the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade etc. ((2005) SCC (L & S) 361) and submitted that as the petitioner was found to have assaulted his superior, no sympathetic consideration can be shown to him. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge is vague, a perusal of the charge shows that the petitioner was imputed with his failure to follow the orders of his superior, using foul language, and physically manhandling and assaulting his superior Mr. K. Satyanarayana, Supervisor. With regard to the imputations relating to the orders of the superior authority and foul language, I find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the nature of the order and the contents of the foul language have not been mentioned in the charge sheet, even though they were elaborated in the evidence of Mr. K. Satyanarayana. Therefore, to this extent, the charge appears to be vague. But, the more serious imputation against the petitioner pertains to his physical manhandling and assaulting of Mr. K. Satyanarayana. To the extent of this part of the charge, there is no vagueness. The charge is very specific to the effect that the petitioner has physically manhandled and assaulted his superior Mr. K. Satyanarayana. If this part of the charge is proved, this is enough to inflict on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. K. Satyanarayana. To the extent of this part of the charge, there is no vagueness. The charge is very specific to the effect that the petitioner has physically manhandled and assaulted his superior Mr. K. Satyanarayana. If this part of the charge is proved, this is enough to inflict on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. Hence, the vagueness of the part of the charge does not in any manner affect the disciplinary proceedings subject to proof of the later part of the charge, namely, manhandling and assaulting of his superior by the petitioner. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the evidence of Mr. K. Satyanarayana, no other evidence has lent support to the charge that the petitioner has assaulted and manhandled Mr. K. Satyanarayana, I have scanned through the oral evidence of six witnesses recorded before the Enquiry Officer. It is true that except Mr. K. Satyanarayana, no other witness has lent corroboration to the part of the charge which relates to the alleged assault and manhandling by the petitioner. However, it needs to be noted that unlike in a criminal proceeding, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in a disciplinary proceeding. Preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to hold an employee guilty of misconduct (See: Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and another ( (1992) 4 SCC 711 ) and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. A. Gopalan ( (1997) 11 SCC 239 )).While dealing with the question whether the Departmental proceedings can be continued after acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal case, the Supreme Courtin South Bengal State Transport Corporation Vs. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others ( 2006 (2) SCC 584 ) held at para-10 as under: “Similarly in Senior Supdt. of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan, the view expressed in Nelson Motis v. Union of India was fully endorsed by this Court and similarly it was held that the nature and scope of proof in a criminal case is very different from that of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and the order of acquittal in the former cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. This Court has further held that in a criminal case charge has to be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt while in departmental proceeding the standard of proof for proving the charge is mere preponderance of probabilities. This Court has further held that in a criminal case charge has to be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt while in departmental proceeding the standard of proof for proving the charge is mere preponderance of probabilities. Such being the position of law now settled by various decisions of this Court, two of which have already been referred to earlier, we need not deal in detail with the question whether acquittal in a criminal case will lead to holding that the departmental proceedings should also be discontinued. That being the position, an order of removal from service emanating from a departmental proceeding can very well be passed even after acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case. In any case, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench did not base their decisions relying on the proposition that after acquittal in the criminal case, departmental proceedings could not be continued and the order of removal could not be passed.” (Emphasis supplied) In Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. P. Kata Rao ( 2007(5) ALT 625 (DB)), a Division Bench of this Court, speaking through me, while following the above Judgments held at para-22 as under: “Generally speaking, acquittal of an employee, who is dismissed or removed from service in furtherance of disciplinary action taken by the employer, in a criminal case does not, ipso facto, entitle him to seek reinstatement because it is settled law that the degree of proof required for holding a delinquent employee guilty of the charge of misconduct is substantially different than the one required for holding a person guilty of criminal offence….” Mr. K. Satyanarayana, who is the victim, has categorically deposed on the circumstances that led to the petitioner physically assaulting him. He has stated in his chief examination that the petitioner is working as operator on HR-2 machine, that on 6.2.96 when he has questioned the petitioner for not starting the machine till 6.35 a.m., the petitioner has told him that he will not run the machine, that when he has asked the petitioner about grant of OT (overtime), the latter has replied that on the previous day i.e., 5.6.96, OT was not given to him, and that the witness answered that due to (availability of) more man power, he could not give OT to the petitioner. He has further deposed that when he has told the petitioner that OT is not required to be given, the latter has used foul language and refused to join duty, that after entrusting the duties to other employees, the witness came to the petitioner and sought to give programme to him, that when the petitioner refused to take the programme, he has kept the same on his table and instructed the Assistant Operator Yesappa to start the work, that when the petitioner was asked to start the work, he refused to do so, upon which, he has asked the petitioner to sit in his cabin and entrusted the work to others, that when the petitioner asked him as to how the machine would start with the persons to whom the work was entrusted, he replied that neither the petitioner performs the duty nor he will permit others to start the machine, that the petitioner has again used abusive language and pulled his hand, and that the petitioner thereafter came from behind him and hit on his left cheek. A perusal of the cross-examination of this witness shows that nothing material could be elicited to show any element of doubt on the veracity of his evidence. The witness has brought out the circumstances, which clearly probabilise occurrence of the incident as narrated by him. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that there was any attempt to victimize him either by the Management or by Mr. K. Satyanarayana. No motives were attributed to them by the petitioner. In the absence of any such allegations, there would have been no reason for Mr. Satyanarayana to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner and for the Management to support him. On the contrary, there was every probability of the petitioner committing the misconduct alleged against him in the situation which has developed between him and Mr. K. Satyanarayana in connection with denial of OT to the petitioner. Therefore, upon carefully weighing the probabilities of the case, I am of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were justified in holding the charge of assault and physical manhandling of his superior by the petitioner as proved. K. Satyanarayana in connection with denial of OT to the petitioner. Therefore, upon carefully weighing the probabilities of the case, I am of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were justified in holding the charge of assault and physical manhandling of his superior by the petitioner as proved. Even though the Labour Court has not discussed the evidence, it felt that there was no need to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Judgment in Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd (1 supra), on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, will not be of any help to the petitioner. In that case, the workman in a sugar mill has allegedly assaulted the cane-grower, as the latter has not met the workman’s demand for payment of Rs.10/-. On appreciation of the evidence, the labour Court has held that the charge was not proved. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has reversed the said finding and set aside the award of the labour Court upholding the order of discharge passed by the Management. A Division Bench of the High Court has, however, reversed the said judgment and the Management carried the matter in S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. In the said fact situation, the Supreme Court held that normally the labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final Court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence, the High Court exercising its power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can go into question of fact decided by labour Court or the Tribunal. On consideration of all the facts, the Supreme Court held that the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the findings of the labour Court and reversing the award. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that except the sole testimony of the cane grower, no other evidence has corroborated his evidence. In my opinion this observation of the Supreme Court cannot be treated as the ratio for the proposition that in departmental proceedings, non-corroboration of evidence of the main witness must constitute a ground for disbelieving his evidence. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that except the sole testimony of the cane grower, no other evidence has corroborated his evidence. In my opinion this observation of the Supreme Court cannot be treated as the ratio for the proposition that in departmental proceedings, non-corroboration of evidence of the main witness must constitute a ground for disbelieving his evidence. Whether the evidence of a particular witness is credible and worth believing depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As already observed above, on the facts of the present case, there was no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence of the petitioner’s superior Mr. K. Satyanarayana, in the absence of any allegations of mala fides. Therefore, non-corroboration of his evidence by other witnesses is not fatal in this case. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the domestic Tribunal and the labour Court on the proof of misconduct on the part of the petitioner are liable for interference. As regards the quantum of punishment, the misconduct proved against the petitioner is very serious. He has assaulted his superior. In Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others ( (2006) 1 SCC 430 ), the Supreme Court has emphasized on the need to maintain discipline in the industrial undertakings. In paragraph 26 of its judgment, the Supreme Court held as under: “This Court has come a long way from its earlier view points. The recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this court it has been noticed that how discipline at the workplaces/industrial undertaking received a set back. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, as noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employers unless an appropriate case is made out therefor. The Tribunal being inferior to that of this court was bound to follow the decisions of this court which are applicable to the fact of the present case in question. The tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow the same.” The charge of assault of the superior proved against the petitioner is too grave to take a lenient view and to interfere with the quantum of punishment. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.