JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 6/2003 declining to grant approval to the order of dismissal passed against the workman pursuant to a domestic enquiry. I have heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel representing the workman i.e. the respondent No. 2. I have also gone to the entire materials including the LCR received from the learned Tribunal. 2. The respondent No. 2 while was serving as Forest Supervisor (SG) at Cachar Paper Mill under Hindustan Paper Corporation was taken up for a disciplinary action vide Annexure-1 charge-sheet dated 21/24.6.2002. It was alleged that he along with the officials named in the charge-sheet had left the working place on 7.4.2002 and visited the particular check gate of the HPC, CPM and made unauthorized changes of original entries in the particular Registers. The defence of the respondent No. 2 was that he had visited the particular check gate as per instruction of his Controlling Officer. He admitted that he had worked on some Registers maintained at the particular check gate called Lailapur Check Gate which related to bamboo supply works of Mizoram. Thus his defence was that whatever he had done was as per instruction of his Controlling Officer. However he did not deny the allegation made in the charge-sheet that by making the fresh entries incorporating new particulars he along with others had defaced the original records with malafide intension and to illegally benefit the bamboo suppliers thereby causing loss to the Corporation. 3. In due course one Shri D.B. Mazumdar, Manager (Purchase) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The presenting Officer was also appointed. In the domestic enquiry, witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. It will be appropriate at that stage to refer to the defence of the workman which is quoted below:-- On 7.4.2002 I visited Lailapur/Vairangtee check gate office at about 4 p.m. from Fulertal. On way at Silchar Sri A.K. Bakshi, Shri Ashok Krf Roy, Shri Ranjan Roy and Sri Biswajyoti Deb also joined with me. We all together reached Lailapur/Vairangtee at about 4 p.m. Reaching Vairangtee/Lailapur Check gate office we found Sri R. Venkal and Sri N. Naiding was also there at the check gate office. On way at Silchar Sri A.K. Bakshi, Shri Ashok Krf Roy, Shri Ranjan Roy and Sri Biswajyoti Deb also joined with me. We all together reached Lailapur/Vairangtee at about 4 p.m. Reaching Vairangtee/Lailapur Check gate office we found Sri R. Venkal and Sri N. Naiding was also there at the check gate office. Thereafter some Registers maintained at Lailapur/Vairangtee check gate offices were re-written by different aforesaid officials other than Sri A.K. Bakshi. Also copies some entries in a new Register in respect of M/s J.M. Saha's Register pertaining Bhairabi available at Lailapur/Vairangtee. My visit to Lailapur/Vairangtee and recording of Register entries was as per verbal instruction of our Reporting Officer Sri A.K. Bakshi as explained in my reply dated 4.7.2002. 4. In conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge leveled against him. Thereafter following the due procedure the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Senior Manager (Forest) for and on behalf of HPCL and CPM by its Annexure-9 order dated 16.6.2003 imposed the major penalty of removal from service with the stipulation that the same would not be disqualification for future employment. 5. Since a reference being Reference No. 5/99 and Reference No. 15/99 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar, Cachar, as per the requirement of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Management of HPC made an application to the said Tribunal seeking approval of the order of removal referred to above. In the meantime, the workman had preferred an Appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 17.7.2003. 6. The application made by the Management of HPC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 25.2.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 6/03. The grounds on which the application has been rejected are as follows:-- (1) The order of removal was passed by the authority lower than the Appointing Authority; (2) While imposing the penalty of removal from service, the Management did not take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous service records of the workman and any other extenuating circumstances. (3) The enquiry proceeding was not appropriate and proper and the Management failed to prove prima facie case against the workman. 7. Mr. (3) The enquiry proceeding was not appropriate and proper and the Management failed to prove prima facie case against the workman. 7. Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid grounds on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed are non est. He also submits that the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the question under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. He further submits that one of the co-accused against whom also domestic enquiry was conducted was removed from service which he unsuccessfully assailed before this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 659/03 followed by Writ Appeal No. 196/06. The said writ petition and the Writ Appeal were dismissed by the judgment and order dated 11.4.2006 and 8.1.2010 respectively upholding the order of removal from service. The basic difference between the said writ petitioner and the respondent No. 1 involved in this proceeding is that when the said petitioner was in the category of officer, the respondent No. 2 herein was in the category of workman. 8. Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Referring to Clause 30(G) of the certified standing orders, she submits that before passing the order of removal from service it was incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority to consult the previous records of the workman and also other extenuating circumstances. 9. As to what was the charge against the workman is noted above. In the domestic enquiry, he had virtually admitted the change with the only defence that whatever he had done was as per verbal instruction of his Controlling Officer. Being a responsible officer of the employer it was not his duty to leave his place of posting to another place (check gate) for the purpose of removing the original entries in the particular Registers by way of replacing the same with new entries. 10. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Annexure-21 Circular dated 29.8.1997 depicting the schedule of competent authority for appointment and disciplinary action in respect of the workmen covered under the standing orders. As per the said circular the petitioner and the employees working in the Forest Department including the establishments at Haflong, Karimganj and Slichar Forest Offices were under the DGM (Forest)/Senior Manager (Forest). As per the said circular the petitioner and the employees working in the Forest Department including the establishments at Haflong, Karimganj and Slichar Forest Offices were under the DGM (Forest)/Senior Manager (Forest). The said authority is the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority. 11. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the said circular was not circulated and as such the workman was not aware of the same. Even if the stand of the workman is accepted, the same is immaterial inasmuch as per the said circular the DGM (Forest II)/Senior Manager (Forest III) is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the respondent No. 2. The said position does not get altered because of non-receipt of the circular by the respondent No. 2. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners has seriously disputed that the workman was unaware of the said circular. 12. Above being the position, the learned Tribunal could not have held that the workman was removed by the authority lower than the Appointing Authority. 13. As regards non-examination of the previous records of the workman and other extenuating circumstances suffice is to say when the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order it had naturally taken into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances which need not be reflected in the order of removal. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the workman. Having regard to gravity of the offence, if the Disciplinary Authority decided to impose the penalty of removal from service no fault can be attributed against the said authority. 14. As regards the finding that the enquiry proceeding was not appropriate and proper and the Management failed to prove prima facie case against the workman, apart from the fact that such scrutiny was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, while examining the prayer of the Management made under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on perusal of the materials on record including the above quoted defence statement of the workman, it cannot be said to be a case of improper enquiry and failure on the part of the Management to prove the case against the workman. In the departmental enquiry it is the preponderance of probability which matters and the charge is not required to be established beyond all reasonable doubt like a criminal proceeding. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 6/03 is not sustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside and quashed. The prayer in the application submitted by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act shall sand granted. 16. It is made clear that all the observations made above shall in no way prejudice the case of the workman in case of raising the industrial dispute relating to the penalty of removal from service. Writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed