- (1.) THIS is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning an Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dated 18th June, 1991 made in Reference no. C. G. I. T.- 2/28 of 1986 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).
(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Hamal in the Stationery Department of the First respondent Corporation at Pune. On 18th December, 1982, the Petitioner was required to complete the work of packing of stationery to be dispatched to the Parbhani Branch. He was required to use a saw for the purposeof this work. He complained that the saw was not sharp enough, left the work and went out of the department. One Kalbhor, Record Clerk, was asked to complete the work. When Kaibhor was carrying out the work, the Petitioner and his coemployee, marathe, came there and, in a very aggressive manner, questioned the propriety of Kalbhor carrying out the packing work by saying : "the cobbler should do the cobbler's work and the scavenger should do the scavenger's work. " The Petitioner and his co-employee, Marathe, were served with charge-sheets dated 18th December, 1982. The Petitioner was charged with three misconducts :- (a) That he had left his work incomplete, (b) That he had interfered with the work of Kaibhor by rudely questioning him as to why kaibhor was carrying out the work of packing and (c) That he took away the instrument box out of the Stationery Department, contrary to instructions.
(3.) A departmental enquiry was held into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. The Enquiry officer by his Report dated 5th November, 1983 found the Petitioner not only guilty of all the charges alleged against him, but also found him guilty of assaulting Kaibhor, though the assault on Kaibhor was not even the subject-matter of the charge-sheet. The Divisional Manager of the first espondent-Corporation accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and served a Show cause Notice dated 22nd December, 1993 upon the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause why penalty of dismissal in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (g) of the applicable Staff Regulations should not be imposed upojh-im. The Petitioner by his reply opposed the proposed penalty of dismissal. However, the Petitioner was dismissed by an Order dated lst February, 1984 in exercise of the power under Regulation 39 (1) (g) of the Staff Regulations and the period of his suspension from 20th November, 1982 was directed to be treated as period not spent on duty or on leave.;