Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has, prayed for quashing of the award dated 30.9.1999 passed in Reference Case No. 5 of 1997 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. II) at Dhanbad whereby and whereunder he has held that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman was legal and justified and consequently he was not entitled tp any relief.
(2.) THE facts which appear from the award are that the concerned workman while posted as a Head Clerk in the Bhalgora Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, was served with a charge -sheet in relation to allegations of misconduct pertaining to theft, fraud and dishonesty. The allegations were that while he was assigned the duties and responsibilities of processing employment files in the year 1991 of the said Bhalgora Area, he dealt with 6 (six) letters containing list of workmen/candidates numbering 319. He was entrusted with the duty of preparing appointment letters in respect of those candidates who had been duly selected for employment as per requirement of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in that area. However, the concerned workman, taking advantage of his official position as Head Clerk, prepared appointment letters in phases in respect of 115 candidates whose names did not even figure in those six letters. Out of these 115 appointment letters, 83 were issued and those persons were consequently appointed and they started working under the management. The remaining 32 appointment letters were cancelled when fraud etc. was detected, The management issued a charge -sheet to the concerned workman and asked him to reply. Upon receipt of his reply, the Management was not satisfied and accordingly a domestic enquiry was constituted and an enquiry officer as also a presenting officer, appointed. Several attempts were made by the enquiry officer notifying the date of enquiry by sending notices both to his local as well as permanent address, but the concerned workman willfully and purposely avoided service of notice. Thereafter the procedure of substituted service was resorted to. Subsequently, repeated attempts were again made to procure his attendance, but all such attempts failed whereafter the Management was compelled to decide the matter expert holding him to be guilty of the charges.
(3.) MR . M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice and this point was taken before the Tribunal relying upon Ramzan Khan's case reported in . Mr. Laik submitted that the concerned workman was prejudiced because a second show cause notice was not given to him and therefore, he was deprived of an opportunity in relation to the sufficiency or otherwise of the proposed punishment.;