Judgment : The Petitioner who was working as a Loader with Respondent No.1 Air India Limited, has challenged the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, dated 10 November 2005, dismissing the Reference in respect of his termination from service. 2. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent No.1 No.1 Air India Limited on 18 December 1978 as a Loader. He was confirmed with effect from 1 July 1979. On 29 June 1986, one Mr.Nain Singh who was the Head Security Guard, was on duty. Mr.Singh was taking rounds in the tarmac area. He was informed by his security assistant to keep watch on loaders. He came to the area where uploading of baggage was in progress. He observed two loaders, one of which was the Petitioner, after off-loading a dead body were coming down from the aircraft. Mr.Singh saw the Petitioner inserting something in his trousers, and pretending to push the trolley in order to avoid to show his front side. Mr.Singh accosted the Petitioner, when the Petitioner told that he committed a mistake and he will not do it again. He removed a saree which he had tucked inside his trousers and threw it on the ground. Mr.Singh held the Petitioner by his collar, took a search and found a bunch of keys in his pocket. The Petitioner was taken by a jeep to the Security Office where the Petitioner gave a statement admitting the guilt. His statement was recorded and also a panchanama was drawn. The Petitioner was suspended on 4 July 1986 3. On 15 July 1986, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner. In the charge-sheet the above incident was narrated. The Petitioner was charged with theft of the property entrusted to the Air India. The Petitioner replied to this notice on 21 July 1986 and denied the charges. He made allegations against Mr.Singh, the Security Guard, stating that he picked up the saree and forcibly tucked it in the Petitioner's trouser. The Petitioner also alleged that he was severely beaten up by Mr.Singh and other security staff and he was forced to sign a statement. He asserted that he was also made to sign a blank panchanama while he was beaten up and abused. An enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner. In the enquiry, witnesses were examined, who were cross-examined by the Petitioner. He asserted that he was also made to sign a blank panchanama while he was beaten up and abused. An enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner. In the enquiry, witnesses were examined, who were cross-examined by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was found guilty of the theft of property and accordingly he was dismissed from service by an order dated 12 November 1987, issued by the Deputy Director of Ground Services, Air India. 4. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal framed preliminary issue as regard the enquiry. The Tribunal gave Part-I Award on 9 March 1999, holding that the Enquiry Committee acted unfairly and the charge was not proved. A review application was filed by the Air India and the Tribunal disposed of the review application by giving opportunity to the Air India to prove the charge. Accordingly, witnesses were examined. The Tribunal rendered Part-II Award on 10 November 2005, dismissing the Reference relying upon the statement given by the Petitioner himself. This Award is impugned in the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner made various submissions on the factual aspect of the case. The learned counsel tried to demonstrate that the case against the Petitioner is concocted. It is not permissible to re-appreciate the entire evidence in the manner sought to be done by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish v/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court & anr., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 517 , to contend that once evidence led in the enquiry has been discarded and after granting permission to lead evidence, same evidence is led, no reliance can be placed on the same. The perusal of the impugned Award shows that this contingency does not arise in the present case. The Tribunal was aware of this position as it specifically referred to it. The Tribunal did not rely upon the evidence of the witnesses of the Air India but on the statement of the Petitioner himself. The Tribunal categorically held that, in view of propriety, the Tribunal cannot take a different approach at Part-II Award stage, however, it can rely upon the statement of the Petitioner. The Tribunal did not rely upon the evidence of the witnesses of the Air India but on the statement of the Petitioner himself. The Tribunal categorically held that, in view of propriety, the Tribunal cannot take a different approach at Part-II Award stage, however, it can rely upon the statement of the Petitioner. The short question therefore arises, as to whether the statement/confession of the Petitioner could have been the basis for rejection of the claim of the Petitioner. Further question is, when the Tribunal has relied upon the confession of the petitioner to reject the claim of the Petitioner whether this approach can be termed as perverse. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has sought to urge that the reliance by Air India on the panchanama is not correct as various persons have signed the panchanama at different times and the document is not genuine. Even if the panchanama is kept aside, what is crucial is the statement given by the Petitioner himself. The Petitioner has in terms admitted in his statement that he had tried to steal the saree and he apologized for the same. The case put up by this Petitioner is that his statement is given under duress and at the first opportunity it was withdrawn. 7. Firstly, in the claim statement filed by the petitioner the occurrence of the incident is not denied but what is disputed is the manner in which it occurred. It is stated that Mr.Singh forced the Petitioner to pick up the saree and forcibly pushed it inside his trousers. Mr.Singh was a Security Guard and it is his job to keep watch on the activities of the loaders. It cannot be believed that Mr.Singh forced the Petitioner to pick up a saree and tried to frame him. If that was so, the first reaction of the Petitioner would have been to make a complaint. The incident took place on 29/30 June 1986. The petitioner made a statement on the same day. The Petitioner was suspended on that count on 4 July 1986. Still no complaint was made to any one. It was only for the first time on 21 July 1986 in reply to the show cause notice he stated that he was severely beaten up and statement was forcefully taken from him. He has categorically asserted that he was continuously beaten up and that too severely. Still no complaint was made to any one. It was only for the first time on 21 July 1986 in reply to the show cause notice he stated that he was severely beaten up and statement was forcefully taken from him. He has categorically asserted that he was continuously beaten up and that too severely. It is not possible to believe that the petitioner will not make any complaint to any person. The Petitioner did not do so even after he was suspended. The Petitioner has admitted that he did not make a complaint to police, any staff member, his own Union. He also did not take any medical treatment from Air India dispensary or private nursing home, or even from any doctor. This shows that retracting the statement is a complete afterthought. Petitioner was trying to make wild and reckless allegations after having been caught red handed by the Security Guard. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s Shri D.H.Deshmukh & anr., reported in 1999 I C.L.R. 764 to contend that an admission when retracted cannot be used for terminating an employee. In the case of Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the workman was illiterate, he could not read and understand and upon considering the other surrounding facts, the Court found that the admission was not genuine. In the present case, the Petitioner has admitted that he knows English. He has given reply to the show cause notice in English. He has signed in English. The decision in the case of Mohd. Khalid v/s State of West Bengal, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334 , of the Apex Court, relied upon by the Petitioner, is as regard the criminal conspiracy and was concerning serious crimes under the Penal Code and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. It is well settled that parameters in criminal law and disciplinary enquiry are completely different. The guilt of a delinquent has to be ascertained on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities. In the circumstances narrated above, it cannot be said that the reliance by the Tribunal on the confession of the Petitioner, to dismiss his claim, was a perverse view. The guilt of a delinquent has to be ascertained on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities. In the circumstances narrated above, it cannot be said that the reliance by the Tribunal on the confession of the Petitioner, to dismiss his claim, was a perverse view. The retraction of the statement does not appear to be genuine and the statement of the petitioner was good ground not to retain him in service. 9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner then contended that the order of termination is issued by the Deputy Director of Ground Services who is not the authority to terminate the services of the Petitioner under the Air India Employees' Service Regulations which were applicable to the Petitioner at the relevant time. 10. Chapter VII of the Regulations deals with Conduct and Discipline. Regulation 43-B states that the power to award punishment enumerated in Regulation 43 i.e. major punishment, is to be exercisable by and to the extent specified in Schedule-I. Schedule-I lists disciplinary and appellate authorities. It is not in dispute that as regard the Petitioner, the relevant entry is “X. Ground Handling”, which reads as under : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. : Authority :Nature of :Employees on whom : Appeal No. empowered. :punishment punishment can be to :under Regu- imposed. Lation-43. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ “X. Ground Handling : 1. Controller-Ground : Any or all : To any employee not above: Managing Handling the grade of Technical Director. Officer or its equivalent. (a) to (e) To any employee not above Managing the grade of Assistant Engi- Director. neering Manager or its equivalent. (a) To any employee in a grade Managing higher than the grades Director. specified above. 2. Sr.Dy. Controller Ground Handling Any or all To any employee not above Controller the grade of Clerk or its Ground equivalent. Handling. (a) to (e) To any employee not above Controller the grade of Office Asstt./ Ground Sr.Technicians or their Handling. equivalent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For an employee not above the grade of Clerk or office assistant or senior technical, senior Deputy Controller - Ground Handling is the competent authority. 11. In the present case, the order of termination has been issued by the Deputy Director of Ground Services. equivalent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For an employee not above the grade of Clerk or office assistant or senior technical, senior Deputy Controller - Ground Handling is the competent authority. 11. In the present case, the order of termination has been issued by the Deputy Director of Ground Services. The Petitioner had raised this ground in his claim and this has been negatived by the Tribunal on the ground that by office order dated 10 November 1987, the Deputy Director of Grounds Handling Services has been empowered. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in submitting that there is no provision for delegation under the Regulations and in any case the Director of Ground Services cannot empower any authority other than one specified in the Regulations. 12. The Regulations specifically provide the authority which can impose punishment of dismissal. The perusal of the Regulations indicate that whenever a designation is changed, there have been amendments by issuing notifications. The Service Regulations have been framed under Section 45(2)(b) read with 8(2) and 20(l) of Air Corporation Act, 1953 with the previous approval of the Central Government. The office note relied upon by the Tribunal cannot have the effect of amending the Regulations. It is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the Air India that Controller of Ground Handling has been designated as the Director of Ground Services. However, there is no such change in the Regulations. Nothing is placed on record to show that the order of termination has been issued by authorities specified in the Regulations or the Deputy Director of Ground Services was authorized by any provision of law to effect the termination. In absence of any material being placed before the Court, the submission of the Petitioner will have to be accepted. 13. Even though the termination of the Petitioner may be by an authority not specified in the Regulation, it cannot ipso facto result in reinstatement. The Controller of Grounds Handling was re-designated as Director of Ground Services, though no amendment to that effect has been carried out in the regulations. It is not placed on record that the Director Ground Services is in any manner inferior to the post specified under the schedule. Nothing is shown as to how this has resulted in any prejudice to the Petitioner. It is not placed on record that the Director Ground Services is in any manner inferior to the post specified under the schedule. Nothing is shown as to how this has resulted in any prejudice to the Petitioner. Considering the fact that the Petitioner was found guilty of committing theft, in no circumstances can the petitioner be placed back in the service, for this legal flaw. 14. However, the fact does remain that the termination order has been signed by an authority not specified in the Regulations. Therefore, the Petitioner needs be compensated in some manner for this illegality committed by the Respondent No.1 management. In my opinion, the equities can be balanced by directing payment of compensation. 15. Considering the over all facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the Petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Petitioner shall be entitled for the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It will be paid by the Respondent No.1 Air India to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. 16. Writ petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute in the above terms.