JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Mr. Kan Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd.(OIL), appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5. 2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an award, dated 30-05- 2011, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 05/2005. 3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under: The petitioner, herein, was appointed as an Account Clerk with the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, in the year 1978. Basing on an allegation arising in the matter against the petitioner of having involved himself in preparation of a enumeration list and for payment of surface compensation to the persons involved, therein, and it having been revealed that 9(nine) persons incorporated in the enumeration list and who were paid such surface compensation, were, in fact, fictitious persons having no existence; a misconduct being borne out, the petitioner, herein, was on 09-07-1999 issued with a Show Cause Notice, instituting a departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said Show Cause Notice, on 03-08-1999, and had contended that he was involved in the preparation of the enumeration list jointly with the deputed officials of the land department of the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. The petitioner had further contended that the pattadars/occupiers of the land so involved, were paid their due compensation after being identified by the village Headman(Goan Burha). Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, herein, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner directed for holding an enquiry in the matter and an enquiry officer came to be appointed for the purpose. Further, a presenting officer was also appointed. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 09-10-2001 and therein, held the charge levelled against the petitioner to have been established from the materials coming on record in the enquiry. The said enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 29-10-2001, and he submitted his representation, thereon, on 08-12-2001. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 09-10-2001 and therein, held the charge levelled against the petitioner to have been established from the materials coming on record in the enquiry. The said enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 29-10-2001, and he submitted his representation, thereon, on 08-12-2001. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, on 13-09-2003, issued an advice for punishment and therein, considering the gravity of misconduct and also the absence of any extenuating circumstances; proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from the services of the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, with effect from 15-09-2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority in the matter. The said appeal, upon consideration, came to be rejected vide communication dated 01-03-2024. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation, dated 06-07-2004, before the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central) raising an industrial dispute. The conciliation so undertaken having been failed, the matter being referred to the appropriate Government, a reference, thereon, came to be made before the Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Assam, Guwahati, on 12-07-2005. The issue so referred for adjudication by the learned Tribunal was, as under: “ Whether the action of the management of Oil India Ltd., Duliajan in dismissing the workman Sri Pranab Kumar Sarmah, Account's Clerk from service w.e.f 13.9.2003 is fair, just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" The learned Tribunal, thereafter, on receipt of the said reference; registered Reference Case No. 05/2005 and notices, thereon, came to be issued to the petitioner as well as the authorities of the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. On 27-02-2006, the learned Tribunal framed a preliminary issue for consideration to the following effect: “ Whether the domestic enquiry held was fair and valid.” The learned Tribunal upon hearing the parties to the proceeding with regard to the preliminary issue framed, vide order, dated 17-09-2007, was pleased to hold that the said domestic enquiry held, was not fair and valid. Being aggrieved with the said decision of the learned Tribunal with regard to the preliminary issue framed; the authorities of the Oil India Ltd. (OIL), Duliajan, assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting WP(c) No. 6304/2007. Being aggrieved with the said decision of the learned Tribunal with regard to the preliminary issue framed; the authorities of the Oil India Ltd. (OIL), Duliajan, assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting WP(c) No. 6304/2007. This Court, vide order, dated 19-12-2007, upon considering the issue arising before it, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition, interfering with the order, dated 17-09-2007 and remanding back the matter to the learned Tribunal for re-consideration. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, reconsidered the preliminary issue framed on 27-02-2006 and on such reconsideration, was pleased, vide its order, dated 28-07-200, to hold that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner, herein, was not free and fair and as such, the domestic enquiry cannot be accepted as just and valid. Thereafter, basing on the prayer made by the Management of the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan; the learned Tribunal decided to consider the reference, on merits. Accordingly, the parties to the proceeding, were directed to adduce evidence in the matter. The authorities of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, thereafter, adduced the evidence of 8(eight) witnesses before the learned Tribunal in support of its contentions. The petitioner, herein, deposed as the workmen witness. The evidences having been brought on record and after hearing the arguments of the parties to the proceeding; the learned Tribunal was pleased vide order, dated 30-05-2011, to affirm the order of dismissal passed in case of the petitioner, herein, by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 4. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has, at the outset, submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, pertains to release of surface compensation to 9(nine) persons who were occupiers of the land, in question, by projecting that they were fictitious persons. However, the vouchers through which payments were so made to the said 9(nine) persons held to be fictitious, were never produced, either, before the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry, or, before the learned Tribunal through the witnesses of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, during their deposition. 5. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that on account of non-production of the said payment vouchers, the allegation levelled against the petitioner, herein, cannot be held to have been established. 5. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that on account of non-production of the said payment vouchers, the allegation levelled against the petitioner, herein, cannot be held to have been established. With regard to the role played by the petitioner, herein, in the enumeration of persons as pattardars/occupiers for payment of surface compensation and inclusion thereof, the names of 9(nine) persons, who were not pattadars/occupiers and who were projected to be fictitious persons, it is submitted by Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel that the petitioner, herein, being from the Accounts Department of the Oil India Ltd. (OIL), Duliajan, was not responsible for the identification of the enumerated pattadars/occupiers, and the same was to be done by the Land Department of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. 6. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the names of the persons were incorporated in the enumeration list basing on they being identified to be either, pattadars, or, occupiers of the land, in question, by the village Headman(Goan Burha). Accordingly, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the Petitioner ought not to have been proceeded against in the matter, inasmuch as, he had no independent role in the enumeration of the names of the pattadars/land occupiers in the enumeration list in the list so prepared. 7. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, by referring to the award, dated 30-05-2011, has submitted that enumeration list so prepared with regard to the pattadars/occupiers pertaining to the jirat required to be paid; the names of the persons identified for being paid the surface compensation, in this connection, were individually identified by the village Headman(Goan Burha) and the petitioner had signed, thereon, basing on such identification made by the village Headman(Goan Burha). 8. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the thumb impression/signature of the village Headman(Goan Burha) figuring in the enumeration lists, was, on his request, sent for forensic examination and the report of the forensic expert was relied upon by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, however, the forensic expert who had rendered the said opinion, was not examined as a witness in the matter. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the FSL report was not be permissible to be considered as an evidence by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the FSL report was not be permissible to be considered as an evidence by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal for the purpose of arriving at its conclusions in the matter, had also placed reliance on such FSL report, without the same being proved by the author, thereof. 9. In the above premises, Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the matter being clearly perverse and the learned Tribunal having exceeded its jurisdiction in arriving at the conclusions so arrived at vide the award, dated 30-05-2011; this Court would be required to interfere with the said award and direct for reinstatement of the petitioner, herein, in his service till the date he had attained his age of superannuation. 10. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that even if it is held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, stood established; considering the nature of allegations levelled against him, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner, is clearly disproportionate and the same would mandate interference from this Court. 11. Per contra, Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd.(OIL), after reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the domestic enquiry instituted against the petitioner, herein, pertained to the preparation of an enumeration list of persons for release of surface compensation and incorporation therein, of the names of 9(nine) persons who were neither, pattadars, nor, occupiers of the land so purchased by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner along with the Land Officer and the Land Clerk of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, were deputed for preparation of the enumeration list and thereafter, the amount of compensation due to be so released to the persons identified, were prepared by the petitioner, herein, and accordingly, payments came to be made to the persons whose names were incorporated in the enumeration list including payment made to the 9(nine) fictitious persons so incorporated in the said list. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner, herein, at the relevant point of time, was also charged in 4(four) other cases for his involvement in embezzlement of the money of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan; unauthorized possession of the Company's official documents and in connection with one of the charges of having disproportionate asset/property as reported by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The learned standing counsel has submitted that out of the 4(four) further departmental enquiries instituted against the petitioner, herein; in one case, he was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service and with regard to the remaining two cases; the proceedings have been kept in abeyance since he was already imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service in one of the proceedings. 13. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd. (OIL), Duliajan, has further submitted that the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 28-07-2008, on the matter being remanded by this Court to it; had, on consideration of the matter, held that the domestic enquiry held in the matter against the petitioner, herein, was not free and fair and the same cannot be accepted as just and valid and was pleased to hear the matter on merit. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the said decision of the learned Tribunal to hear the reference on its merits, was not assailed by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, before this Court and the authorities of the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, had proceeded to adduce evidence through its witnesses before the learned Tribunal, in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner, herein. The learned standing counsel has also submitted that before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, had through the deposition of its 8(eight) witnesses, brought on record, all requisite materials in support of the charge framed against the petitioner, herein. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner had also cross-examined the witnesses, so deposing the before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. However, the evidences brought on record by the witnesses of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, were not refuted by the cross-examinations made by the petitioner, herein. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner's contention that he was not involved in the preparation of the enumeration list is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, 20(twenty) nos. However, the evidences brought on record by the witnesses of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, were not refuted by the cross-examinations made by the petitioner, herein. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner's contention that he was not involved in the preparation of the enumeration list is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, 20(twenty) nos. of enumeration lists involved in the matter and exhibited as Exhibit No. 22 series before the learned Tribunal, had the signatures of the petitioner, therein, and the same was not denied by him. Further, Sri D. N. Prasad Gupta, the Vigilance Inspector, who was examined as Management Witness No. 6 before the learned Tribunal, had, in his evidence, more particularly, during his cross-examination by the petitioner, herein, contended that the payment vouchers were prepared by the petitioner himself. 14. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the evidences coming on record would go to establish that the petitioner, herein, was involved in the process of identification of the pattadars/occupiers of the land, in question, from its initial stage and accordingly, he cannot be absolved from the allegations of having also enumerated the names of 9(nine) fictitious persons for being awarded the surface compensation in the matter by projecting them to be the occupiers of the land, in question. 15. With regard to the non-examination of the forensic expert rendering the FSL report involved in the matter, Mr. Kalita, by referring to the FSL report, which was exhibited as Exhibit No. 33, has contended that the thumb impression/signature of the village Headman(Goan Burha) as found in the enumeration lists, were held by the forensic expert to be forged. The learned standing counsel, has, by referring to the deposition of the petitioner during his cross-examination, has contended that the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha), was sent for forensic examination basing on the request made by the petitioner, herein, and further that the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) was so obtained in presence of the petitioner. 16. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the admission of the FSL report with regard to the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) as finding place in the enumeration list as evidence, having not been objected to by the petitioner and the same having been permitted to be exhibited; the petitioner cannot now be permitted to question the same. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the admission of the FSL report with regard to the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) as finding place in the enumeration list as evidence, having not been objected to by the petitioner and the same having been permitted to be exhibited; the petitioner cannot now be permitted to question the same. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that the FSL report, being exhibited as Exhibit No.33, without any objection from the petitioner, herein; the same would be admissible and it is not mandated that for appreciating the disclosure made in such a report, the expert making the opinion, is also to be examined. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the village Headman(Goan Burha) who was projected to have identified the land owners/Pattadars incorporated in the enumeration list, not being examined by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, before the learned Tribunal, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, in the matter, stood vitiated; Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the evidence of MW-2 before the learned Tribunal had brought on record, the fact that the village Headman(Goan Burha), at the relevant point of time, was around 100 years of age and was unable to move and had also partially lost his vision. 17. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has further submitted that the Vigilance Inspector i.e. MW-6 had recorded the statement of the village Headman(Goan Burha) and therein, it was brought on record that the 9(nine) persons identified to be fictitious, who were not Pattadars and/or occupiers of land and were not the residents of the area nearby the vicinity of the land purchased by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, and that he had no knowledge about any payments made to the said 9(nine) persons. The statement of the village Headman(Goan Burha) was exhibited before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit No. 24 without any objection from the petitioner, herein. Further, what is relevant to be noted is that Management Witnesses No. MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 who were residents of the village, in question, wherein, the land so involved was purchased by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, had categorically stated that the 9(nine) persons projected to be fictitious persons by the authorities of the Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, were not residents of the said village at the relevant point of time. 18. Mr. 18. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has further contended that the jurisdictional Circle Officer(MW-5), during his deposition; exhibited before the learned Tribunal, the relevant documents and had deposed that there was no patta issued in the names of the said 9(nine) persons and there was also no proof of their possessing the land, in question. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the evidence brought on record by the Management Witnesses No. 1, 2, 3 & 5, were not refuted by the petitioner, herein, before the learned Tribunal. 19. Mr. Kalita, in the above premises, has submitted that the conclusions so drawn by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award, dated 30-05- 2011, would go to reveal that the same has been so drawn strictly basing on the materials coming on record before it through the evidences adduced by the parties to the proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no perversity in the conclusions so drawn by the learned Tribunal and accordingly, any interference in the matter, would not be called for from this Court. 20. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, with regard to the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is clearly disproportionate; has submitted that the materials brought on record by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, before the learned Tribunal, would go to reveal that the conduct of the petitioner, herein, was not commensurating to that of an employee of the organization and that he was a repeated offender. Accordingly, Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to any sympathy and the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, herein; cannot be held to be disproportionate. 21. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has further submitted that there was no discrimination meted out in respect of the petitioner, herein, inasmuch as, the other two officials involved in the preparation of the enumeration list, i.e., the Land Officer and the Land Clerk of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, were also proceeded against individually by way of instituting separate departmental proceedings against them. On conclusion of the departmental proceedings so instituted against them; the Land Officer as well as the Land Clerk came to be dismissed from their respective services of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. On conclusion of the departmental proceedings so instituted against them; the Land Officer as well as the Land Clerk came to be dismissed from their respective services of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. The said persons had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(c) No. 6047/2004[Lolit Rajkonwar v. Oil India Ltd.] and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court this Court vide, order dated 10-05-2013, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. Likewise, the other person involved, had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(c) No. 3937/2008[Ruchi Nath Baruah v. Oil India Ltd.] and a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased vide order, dated 10-05-2013, to dismiss the said writ petition. 22. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh , reported in ( 6 SCC 187 23. In the above premises, Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance by this Court and the same is required to be dismissed at the threshold. 24. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 25. At the outset, it is to be noted that the order, dated 28-07-2008, passed by the learned Tribunal holding the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner, herein, to be not free and fair and being impermissible to be accepted as just and valid and deciding to consider the reference on its merits and requiring the parties to adduce evidence, being not under challenge in the present proceeding and the same having attained its finality, this Court would not proceed to examine the validity, thereof. In view of the above, the present order is confined to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award, dated 30-05-2011. 26. This Court would also like to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has, in its various decisions, laid down that this Court while issuing a writ of certiorari, does act as an appellate court of law. The writ jurisdiction extends to cases where orders are passed by the courts, or, tribunals, or, authorities in excess of their jurisdiction. 26. This Court would also like to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has, in its various decisions, laid down that this Court while issuing a writ of certiorari, does act as an appellate court of law. The writ jurisdiction extends to cases where orders are passed by the courts, or, tribunals, or, authorities in excess of their jurisdiction. It is settled that a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ jurisdiction extends to cases where orders are passed by courts, or, tribunals, or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally, or, improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing miscarriage of justice. A writ in the nature of Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate Court or Tribunal is found to have acted [i] without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or [ii] in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or [iii] acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. 27. Further, it would be permissible to interfere with the decision of a Tribunal, in the event, it is demonstrated that the conclusions reached by such tribunal in its order/award is clearly perverse to the materials brought on record before it. 28. Having noticed the limits of the power of this Court in the present proceedings, this Court would proceed to examine the impugned award, dated 30-05-2011, basing on the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the present proceeding. 29. As noticed hereinabove; the charge levelled against the petitioner, herein, in the domestic enquiry being relevant, the Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-1999, is extracted hereinbelow: “ CONFIDENTIAL Shri P.K. Sharma, Regd.No. 09/5852, Accounts Department. Sub: Show Cause Notice It has been reported against you as under: 2.0 You were directly associated with preparation of enumeration list and payment of Surface Compensation for location MIC near Margherita. Sub: Show Cause Notice It has been reported against you as under: 2.0 You were directly associated with preparation of enumeration list and payment of Surface Compensation for location MIC near Margherita. On scrutiny of the documents in connection with payment of Surface Compensation for the said Location MTC by the Vigilance Department of the Company, it has been observed that you were involved in preparation f the enumeration list and to Rs. payment of Surface Compensation amounting 4,26,973.15 to 9 persons in fictitious name without their existence. Reproduced below are name of such persons in whose name the enumeration list was prepared and payment of Compensation was alleged to have been made without their existence in that area so as to defraud the Company and derive undue benefit. Sl. No. Name of alleged occupier Dag No. Surface Compensation Rs. i) Sri Robin Sonowal 59 45,034.60 ii) Sri Durllav Gohain 34 47,235.75 iii) Sri Gojen Sonowal 34 48.652.00 iv) Sri Mohendra Sonowal 27/34 42,526.30 v) Sri Madan Gohain 24/27 49,189.60 vi) Sri Chitra Gohain 43/44 49,154.00 vii) Sri Bholok Gohain 60/214 49,845.00 viii) Sri Padmeswar Gohain 27/28 47,115.00 ix) Sri Nanda Sonowal 59/60 48.220.90 Total: Rs. 4,26,973.15 2.0 The above acts alleged to have been committed by you amount to misconduct under section 21.1.2 of the Company's Modified Standing Orders. 3.0 You are hereby given an opportunity to submit your written explanation within 3 (Three) days from receipt of this Notice as to why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against you as per the aforesaid sections of the Company's Modified Standing Orders. 4.0 Should you fail to submit your explanation within the stipulated time limit, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer in your offence and the Company will take further action on the matter.” 30. A perusal of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, in the Show Cause Notice, would go to reveal that the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in the preparation of an enumeration list and payment of surface compensation to Pattadars/Occupiers of the land which was brought by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. It was also alleged, therein, that 9(nine) persons incorporated in the enumeration list, as occupiers of the land, in question, were actually fictitious persons. It was also alleged, therein, that 9(nine) persons incorporated in the enumeration list, as occupiers of the land, in question, were actually fictitious persons. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held in the matter. The enquiry officer on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report on 09-10-2001 and therein, held the charge framed against the petitioner, herein, to be proved. Thereafter, upon the petitioner submitting a representation against the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, vide order, dated 13-09-2003, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from the services of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, with effect from on 15-09-2003. The petitioner having raised a dispute in the matter and the conciliation having failed, a reference came to be made before the learned Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The issue referred to the learned Tribunal was to the effect as to whether the action of the Management of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, in dismissing the petitioner from his service, is fair, just and legal, and if not, as to what relief, the workman is entitled to. 31. The learned Tribunal, after the parties had brought on record their respective pleadings, proceeded to frame a preliminary issue to the effect as to whether the domestic enquiry held in the matter was fair and valid. Vide order, dated 17-09-2007, the said preliminary issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, herein, which led to the institution of a writ petition before this Court by the authorities of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, being WP(c) No. 6304/2007. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 19-12-2007, proceeded to allow the said writ petition by interfering with the order, dated 17-09-2007, remanding back the matter to the learned Tribunal for re-consideration on the basis of a reasoned order. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, vide order, dated 28-07-2008, considered the said preliminary issue and holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner, herein, was not free and fair and therefore, not acceptable as just and valid, proceeded to examine the reference on its merits and the parties were directed to adduce evidence in the matter. 32. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, vide order, dated 28-07-2008, considered the said preliminary issue and holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner, herein, was not free and fair and therefore, not acceptable as just and valid, proceeded to examine the reference on its merits and the parties were directed to adduce evidence in the matter. 32. It is seen that the authorities of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, had adduced evidence of 8(eight) witnesses as Management Witnesses in the enquiry and thereafter, the petitioner had recorded his own statement. Pursuant to the parties adducing their evidence in the matter and upon hearing of the parties to the proceeding; the learned Tribunal, vide award, dated 30-05-2011, was pleased to hold that the charge of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner, herein, to be fully established and that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from his service by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. The learned Tribunal had also recorded a conclusion to the effect that no inherent illegality, or, impropriety was found to have been committed by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, in dismissing the workman. Accordingly, the order of dismissal of the petitioner, herein, was affirmed and the reference was answered accordingly. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 33. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from his service without first ascertaining, both in the domestic enquiry as well as in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the actual role played by him in the preparation of the enumeration list and the payment made to the persons so enumerated in the said list. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that such enumeration was made solely by the officials of the Land Department of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that such enumeration was made solely by the officials of the Land Department of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. The said contention as made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, the evidence brought on record by the Management Witnesses No. 6, who was the Vigilance Inspector in the Department, goes to establish that the petitioner was closely involved in the process of investigation of the enumeration list along with the officials of the Land Department of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, and that after preparation of the enumeration list, it was the petitioner, herein, who had prepared the payment vouchers basing on which the payments were actually released to the persons so enumerated in the enumeration list. 34. From the enumeration lists which were exhibited as Exhibit-22 series, it is seen that in all the enumeration lists so prepared, the signature of the petitioner, herein, is found to appear. The plea taken by the petitioner is to the effect that he had signed the said enumeration list after the Pattadar/Occupier of the land concerned was so identified by the village Headman(Goan Burha). The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the village Headman(Goan Burha) not having been examined as a witness in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the contention of the petitioner that he had signed on the enumeration list only on the Pattadar/Occupier of the land being identified by the village Headman(Goan Burha) concerned, remained un-refuted and accordingly, no allegation, in this connection, could have been levelled against the petitioner herein. 35. A perusal of the evidences brought on record before the learned Tribunal would go to reveal that the petitioner had admitted to his signatures figuring in the enumeration list which were jointly prepared by the petitioner along with the Land Officer and Land Clerk of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. It is also seen that the petitioner had cross- examined all the management witnesses. It is also seen that the petitioner had cross- examined all the management witnesses. The thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) figuring in the enumeration list as the identifier of the person so enumerated to be a Pattadar/Occupier of the land, was, at the instance of the petitioner, sent for forensic examination and for the purpose of comparison of the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) so finding place in the enumeration list, the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) was obtained by the Officials of the respondent Oil India Ltd. (OIL), Duliajan, in the presence of the petitioner, herein, before it was sent to the forensic expert for examination. The said position has also not been disputed by the petitioner herein. 36. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory reveals that the thumb impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) as finding place in the enumeration list was forged and such opinion rendered by the forensic expert which was exhibited before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit No. 33 was not disputed by the petitioner, herein. The evidence of MW-2 reveals that the village Headman(Goan Burha) at the relevant point of time, was around 100 years of age and that he was not able to move and also had partially lost his vision. The statement recorded of the village Headman(Goan Burha) was exhibited before the learned Tribunal and the same was so permitted to be exhibited by the petitioner, herein, without any objection. The evidence of the village Headman(Goan Burha) reveals that the 9(nine) persons who have been held to be fictitious, were not the residents of the vicinity of the land as purchased by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, and that he had no knowledge of any payments made to the said 9(nine) persons involved. 37. At this stage, a perusal of the evidence brought on record by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, before the learned Tribunal of the residents of the area i.e. Management Witnesses No. 1, 2 & 3, would clearly go to establish that the 9(nine) persons identified to be fictitious persons incorporated in the enumeration list, were not the residents of the village, in question, at the relevant point of time. The evidence of MW-5 i.e. the jurisdictional Circle Officer further goes to establish that the land records maintained, does not reveal the names of the said 9(nine) persons to be either Pattadars/Occupiers of the land purchased by the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan. 38. The role of the petitioner, herein, in preparing the enumeration lists, having been established and the signature therein of the village Headman(Goan Burha), admittedly, having been established to be a forged one; it is to be examined as to whether the non-examination of the village Headman(Goan Burha) and the forensic expert has the effect of rendering the said evidences to be inadmissible. 39. As noticed hereinabove; the village Headman(Goan Burha), admittedly, had not deposed before the learned Tribunal, however, his statement so recorded in the preliminary enquiry, earlier, was exhibited before the learned Tribunal by the Management Witnesses. The perusal of the evidences brought on record, does not reveal that the petitioner had disputed such statement of the village Headman(Goan Burha) so exhibited before the learned Tribunal. With regard to the non-examination of the forensic science expert, it is a settled position of law that the genuineness of the specimens of the finger impression of the village Headman(Goan Burha) which was taken in the presence of the petitioner, herein, being not disputed, the comparison of such thumb impression being made with the thumb impression of the village Headman (Goan Burha), in the enumeration lists, the forensic expert having submitted his report, opining the signature of the village Headman(Goan Burha) in the enumeration lists, to be forged; the non-examination of the forensic expert, in the considered view of this Court, would not render the opinion given, to be inadmissible in evidence. 40. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court also notices that the petitioner, herein, had not made any representation before the learned Tribunal for summoning the village Headman(Goan Burha) and the forensic expert for examination. Accordingly, the statement of the village Headman (Goan Burha) as well as the FSL report exhibited in the matter by the management witnesses of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan; in the considered view of this Court, would be admissible evidence. 41. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the award, dated 30-05-2011. The learned Tribunal after noticing the evidences coming on record in the matter, the following conclusions: “ 8. 41. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the award, dated 30-05-2011. The learned Tribunal after noticing the evidences coming on record in the matter, the following conclusions: “ 8. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the Management vis-à-vis the evidence adduced by the workman. Also perused the plethora of documents exhibited by the parties. Ext.22 series clearly shows that the workman put his signatures in the enumeration list of jirat vide Ext.22(1) to Ext.22(20). These are not disputed by the workman. It is thus, evident that the enumeration list was prepared in his presence and he was quite aware of the happenings. Ext.35 is show cause notice, Ext.36 & 37 are the explanation by the workman. Ext 39 is the series of similar charges. MW.1, in his evidence has specifically stated that Nanda Sonwal, Padmeswar Gohain, Bholok Gohain, Chitra Gohain, Modon Gohain, Mohendra Sonowal, Gojen Sonowal, Durlab Gohain and Robin Sonowal were not the residents of his village even though surface compensation was paid to them in a fictitious manner. The evidence of MW.5, clearly shows that Oil India Ltd. vide Ext. 13 requested the Circle Officer to inform as to whether the 9 fictitious persons mentioned in Ext. 13 had land and possession in their name in Khumchai village. In response to his letter, Circle Officer, M.W.5 vide his letter Ext. 14 informed Oil India Ltd. that no such land is standing in the name aforementioned 9 persons. The evidence of M.W.5 clearly shows that 9 fictitious persons had no land in their name nor they had any possession, even though surface compensation was paid to them. MW.8 in para 16 of his evidence-in-affidavit has said the Accounts Clerk i.e. the workman signed the enumeration and calculation sheets and the Superior Officer has to rely on his comments because he is deployed for such job. He has further said that the workman P.K.Sarma can not be trusted because various charges of defalcation were detected against the workman. M.W.7, Soroj Kr. Deka has said the procedural aspects in regard to letter dated 19.8.2000 issued by the Chief Manager (land). In Annexure-I payment of surface compensation in respect of pattadars, Ext.34 is a (1)(2) of Ext. He has further said that the workman P.K.Sarma can not be trusted because various charges of defalcation were detected against the workman. M.W.7, Soroj Kr. Deka has said the procedural aspects in regard to letter dated 19.8.2000 issued by the Chief Manager (land). In Annexure-I payment of surface compensation in respect of pattadars, Ext.34 is a (1)(2) of Ext. 34 reads as follows: “ The representative of the Land and the Accounts visit the site and enlist the numbers of standing crops and assets in the presence of concerned occupiers and village headman. In absence of village headman the assistance of nearby village headman or prominent persons of the locality who is well aware of the inhabitants of respective locality and able to identify the occupier is taken." From the plain reading it is thus seen that the Accounts Clerk i.e. workman P.K.Sarma can not absolve his liability because, he had active participation in the process of making enumeration list. The learned counsel for the Management during the course of argument drawn my attention to Ext.36 wherein the workman admitted his participation in preparation of enumeration list jointly with the Land Department. This admission of the workman clearly shows that he played an important role while preparing enumeration list. The active participation of the workman in processing enumeration list par-se involves his responsibility. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the Tribunal vide his order dated 17.9.2007 held that the domestic enquiry was not fair. Thereafter the parties were allowed to adduce evidence on merit.” 42. A perusal of the said conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal, would go to reveal that the same are supported by the evidences coming on record before it in the matter and no perversity, thereof, is found by this Court. The materials on record having demonstrated that the petitioner, herein, was actively involved in the preparation of the enumeration list in the matter and therein, admittedly, the names of 9(nine) fictitious persons being incorporated; this Court finds that the charge levelled against the petitioner, stood established and the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal that the charge of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner, herein, to be established; would mandate an acceptance by this Court. 43. Mr. 43. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has submitted that even if it is to be held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, herein, to have been established; the penalty imposed being disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him and proved in the enquiry held in the matter; the same would mandate an interference from this Court. 44. With regard to the above contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, is grossly disproportionate to the allegations as levelled against him; this Court, in this context, would refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum- Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , wherein in this connection, the following conclusions were drawn by the Court: “ 15. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All E.R. 1148] observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application.” 45. The allegations as levelled against the petitioner on being established in the inquiry held by the learned Tribunal and the same having demonstrated a misconduct being committed in the matter by the petitioner, herein; it is to be noted that the petitioner cannot, in any manner, be extended with any sympathy. The allegations levelled against the petitioner having been held to have been established and the misconduct as committed by him, being apparent, the penalty as imposed upon him; cannot be held to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 46. It is to be noted that only when the punishment is found by this Court to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the allegations levelled against the delinquent that the principle of proportionality would come into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with the doctrine of Wednesbury rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. 47. The principle of proportionality was first propounded by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service in the following words:(AC p. 410 D-E) “ ........ 47. The principle of proportionality was first propounded by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service in the following words:(AC p. 410 D-E) “ ........ Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads of the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. This is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality'." 48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had approved the aforesaid principle in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India , reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by emphasising that "all powers have legal limits" invoked the aforesaid doctrine in the following words in paragraph No. 25. Paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: (SCC p. 620, para 25) "25. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review." 49. In view of the pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters, as noticed above; it is clear that it is not for the writ Court to interfere with the punishment imposed upon a delinquent in a domestic enquiry, which is a matter within the domain and the jurisdiction of the departmental authority. In view of the pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters, as noticed above; it is clear that it is not for the writ Court to interfere with the punishment imposed upon a delinquent in a domestic enquiry, which is a matter within the domain and the jurisdiction of the departmental authority. The authorities of the respondent Oil India Ltd. (OIL), Duliajan, having found the misconduct against the petitioner, herein, to have been established; it was within their competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty as it may consider adequate commensurating to the misconduct attributed and proved. Further, in the present case, the learned Tribunal by making an independent enquiry, having concluded that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to be appropriate, and no error being found therein; it is not for the writ Court to prescribe another penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. 50. Having drawn the above conclusions; this Court would also examine as to whether the petitioner, herein, is entitled to being extended with similar observations as extended by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(c)6047/2004 and WP(c)3937/2008. 51. In this connection, it is to be noted that the 2(two) other persons involved in the matter, i.e. Lolit Rajkonwar, the Senior Land Officer and Ruchi Nath Baruah, the Land Clerk, respectively, who were deputed along with the petitioner, herein, for preparation of the enumeration list and making payment of the surface compensation to the land of the Pattadars/Occupiers of the land, in question, also in pursuance of separate domestic enquiries instituted against them; were imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. The aforesaid persons have, thereafter, assailed the penalty of dismissal from the respective services imposed upon them by way of instituting writ petitions before this Court being WP(c) No. 6047/2004 and WP(c) No. 3937/2008, respectively. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 10-05-2013, on noticing the issues arising in those proceedings, was pleased to uphold the penalty as imposed upon said Lolit Rajkonwar and Ruchi Nath Baruah. However, after having upheld the said penalty, this Court had made the following observation: “ 19. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, dated 10-05-2013, on noticing the issues arising in those proceedings, was pleased to uphold the penalty as imposed upon said Lolit Rajkonwar and Ruchi Nath Baruah. However, after having upheld the said penalty, this Court had made the following observation: “ 19. Considering the fact that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its opinion with the disciplinary authority in respect of imposition of penalty, while not interfering with the impugned orders, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to re-consider the matter regarding imposition of the penalty and as to whether any other penalty including the penalty of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice.” 52. With regard to the petitioner herein, the evidences coming on record before the learned Tribunal, goes to establish that the Show Cause Notice, 09-07-1999, was not the solitary departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein. The petitioner was subjected to further departmental proceedings by the authorities of the respondent Oil India Ltd.(OIL), Duliajan, which also included allegation of misappropriation of money. In one of the proceedings so instituted against the petitioner, herein, by a Show Cause Notice, dated 14-06-2001, allegations levelled against him, were found to have been established in the enquiry and upon submission of a representation against the enquiry report by the petitioner; the disciplinary authority had concluded that the allegations so levelled against him merited imposition of a major penalty against him. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner was already dismissed from his service, vide communication, dated 13-09-2003, i.e. the penalty under challenge in the present proceeding, the disciplinary authority decided not to initiate further disciplinary action in the matter at that stage and the same would be dealt with at an appropriate stage, if required. The petitioner was also subjected to a disciplinary proceeding vide issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 18-01-2003, and therein, also on conclusion of the enquiry, the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to have been established. The disciplinary authority, vide order, dated 09-07-2004, on considering the evidences coming on record as well as the representation made by the petitioner against the enquiry report involved, therein, had opined that the charges having been proved, a penalty of dismissal from service was mandated to be imposed upon him. The disciplinary authority, vide order, dated 09-07-2004, on considering the evidences coming on record as well as the representation made by the petitioner against the enquiry report involved, therein, had opined that the charges having been proved, a penalty of dismissal from service was mandated to be imposed upon him. However, the petitioner having already been dismissed from service w.e.f. 13-09-2003, the dismissal from service of the petitioner was reaffirmed. 53. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, in 2(two) further proceedings having already been found to be liable to be imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service and in one of such proceedings, his dismissal having been reaffirmed; this Court is of the considered view that remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for imposition of any other penalty including the penalty of compulsory retirement, would not be called for, given the conduct of the petitioner borne out of the record of the matter. Further, the conduct of the petitioner as coming on record, would not lead this Court to hold that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him and upheld by the learned Tribunal is clearly disproportionate mandating a direction for imposition from this Court of any other penalty upon him by his disciplinary authority. 54. In view of the above conclusions reached hereinabove; the decisions relied upon by the learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd.(OIL), appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5; is not being discussed in detail. 55. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions; this Court proceeds to hold that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner, herein, to be proportionate to the allegations levelled against him and accordingly, holds that the award, dated 30-05-2011, would not mandate any interference by this Court. 56. The writ petition, accordingly, is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, consequently, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 57. Original records be remitted to the Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, Assam, forthwith.