1. The petitioner was formerly employed by respondent 1, hereinafter referred to as the respondents. In the early hours of 17 July, 1963 when the petitioner was leaving the factory and when he was coming out he was checked at the gate by the watchman on duty. The Watchman found in the petitioner's umbrella a roll of bandage and a reel of thread belonging to the respondents. The petitioner pleaded for forgiveness and asked for one more chance being given to him. The matter was then reported to the security officer who recorded the statement of the petitioner. In that statement the petitioner admitted that he had removed the articles which were found in his umbrella when he was inside the factory. On the following day the petitioner was served with a chargesheet. The enquiry was held on 19 July 1963. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the factory manager, who came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of theft. He therefore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner to show why he should not be dismissed from service. On 9 August 1963 the petitioner was dismissed from service. On the same day an application was made to the industrial tribunal for approval of the action taken against the petitioner, under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act The tribunal approved the action. Thereafter the present special civil application was filed.
2. Sri Shetty, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that no proper enquiry was held in this case and that the rules of natural justice ware not followed. It seems to us that there is no substance in these arguments. Sri Shetty has urged that the petitioner was not given sufficient time to prepare has defence before the inquiry was held. On 19 July 1963 the petitioner was asked by the enquiry officer whether he wanted anybody from his department to defend him. The petitioner replied to this question in the negative. He was also asked whether he had any witnesses to examine in his defence and he replied that he had no witnesses in his defence. From these and other replies given by the petitioner to the inquiry officer it appears that the petitioner had no objection to the inquiry being held on that day. In any case he did not ask for any adjournment of the inquiry to enable hi to prepare his defence or to get assistance. Sri Shetty has also urged that the statement of the petitioner which he made before the security officer has been relied upon by the inquiry officer, even though the petitioner had not admitted that he had made his statement. The petitioner was specifically asked two questions, viz., whether the statement was his and whether the signature on it was his. He replied to these questions in the affirmative. In this statement the petitioner has admitted the theft committed by him. It appears that a copy of this statement was not previously supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, does not appear to have asked for a copy of it. Consequently it cannot be said that the inquiry was vitiated because a copy of the statement was not previously supplied to the petitioner.
3. The inquiry, therefore, appears to have been held properly. The finding recorded in the inquiry is supported by the admission made by the petitioner himself both before the watchman and before the security officer. No ground has, therefore, been made out for interference.
4. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.