- (1.)The respondent at the material time was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Income Tax Office, B-III Ward, Bombay. On 30/9/19800 he forcibly entered the cabin of one L. S. Pawar, Income Tax Officer of D-I Ward leading a crowd of 20 to 25 employees. There were accusations of assault on Pawar by him. It was alleged that he dragged Pawar out from his room by putting a knife on his chest and physically removed him from the office building and told him never to return. Pawar filed a complaint with the police station and ultimately the respondent was charge-sheeted under S. 147, 149, 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent along with two others was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate - 14th court, Bombay by his order dated 23/6/1983. All the three were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs 500. 00.
(2.)The respondent was put under suspension and a memorandum was issued to him dated 2/7/1983 staling that since he was convicted his retention in public service had become undesirable and, therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service was proposed. The respondent made a representation. Ultimately by an order dated 18/8/1983 the respondent was dismissed from service.
(3.)The respondent had appealed from the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. Ultimately by order dated 29/10/1983 the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence against the respondent and acquitted him by giving him the benefit of doubt. Thereupon the appellants by an order dated 3/12/1983 set aside the order of dismissal from service. They, however, directed that a departmental enquiry should be held against the respondent. A charge-sheet was served upon the respondent and a departmental enquiry was held. After the Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority the respondent was informed by the Disciplinary Authority by letter dated 6/8/1986 that they proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent and asked the respondent to show cause. The Disciplinary Authority along with this letter forwarded a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report and his findings. Ultimately the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 9/9/1986 dismissing the respondent from service. The respondent filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 19-5-1987. From this order the respondent filed an application before the central Administrative tribunal, Bombay bench. The tribunal by its judgment and order dated 5/8/1992 has set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority had violated the principles ofnatural justice inasmuch as their letter asking the respondent to show cause against the punishment proposed to be imposed was in violation of the principles of natural justice since the authorities had already made up their mind. The present appeal is filed from the order of the tribunal.