AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN this Writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th August, 1989 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer, Project Office, Sudamdih as contained in Annexure -4 by which the Petitioner has been dismissed, from service. Further prayer of the Petitioner is to quash the Award dated 23rd January, 2001 passed by the Presiding, Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 20 of 1991, as contained in Annexure -5, by which the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad,. in answer to the dispute referred to it, held that the action of the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s BCCL, in dismissing the Petitioner from service was justified and the Petitioner/concerned workman was not entitled to any relief. The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the Petitioner being employed as a Dresser was posted in Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. B.C.C.L. A complaint was made by one another employee namely Ashok Mallah, a other of the Rescue Station of the said Colliery that his sister Urmila Kumari was taken to the riverside dispensary at Sudamdh for treatment of her injured finger. The concerned workman/Petitioner attended her at 10:00 A.M. and asked her to come again at 12:15 P.M. to collect medicine. Urmila Kumari, aged about 12 years, again came to the dispensary at about 12:15 P.M. when the dispensary was closed and the Petitioner was outside the dispensary. He took Urmila Kumari and three children of Ashok Mallah who were accompanying inside the dressing room and closed three children in one room and thereafter, took Urmila Kumari to dressing room where he dressed her injured finger and thereafter, unressed her lower garments and outraged her modesty. During outraging her modesty, he gagged her mouth so that she may not cry.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the Petitioner was charge sheet and was put under suspension. He submitted his reply denying the allegations but finding the same to be not satisfactory, a domestic inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner in which the Petitioner also participated. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the management as well as on behalf of the Petitioner and, thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the concerned workman was guilty. On the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed by the management. The Petitioner, thereafter, raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as to whether the action of the management in dismissing the Petitioner from service was justified and if not what relief he is entitled to.;