JUDGMENT : B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. 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 purpose of this work. He complained that the saw was not sharp enough, left the work and went out of the department. One Kaibhor, Record Clerk, was asked to complete the work. When Kaibhor was carrying out the work, the Petitioner and his co employee ,Marathe, came there and, in a very aggressive manner, questioned the propriety of Kaibhor 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. (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 Respondent-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 upon him. The Petitioner by his reply opposed the proposed penalty of dismissal. 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. 4. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement in service with back-wages. The dispute was processed under the Act and resulted in Reference No. C.G.I.T. 2/28 of 1986 being made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Bombay. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal held that the enquiry held against the Petitioner was in compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were just and proper, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse, that the Reference was tunable in law, that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the Reference and finally that the action of the Management of the First Respondent- Corporation in terminating the service of the Petitioner was justified. On this reasoning, by the impugned Award, the Tribunal denied relief to the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner is before this Court by the present Writ Petition. 5. Shri Taisania, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged that the impugned Award is wholly perverse. Particularly, with regard to the issue as to perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he drew my attention to the discussion on issues No. 2 and 3 in paragraph 11 of the Award. Having perused the contents of paragraph 11 of the impugned Award and the record, I am inclined to agree with the somewhat strong criticism of Shri Taisania that the approach of the Tribunal is wholly cavalier and does not disclose proper application of mind. What was urged before the Tribunal was that the Enquiry Officer had travelled beyond the scope of the charge-sheet and introduced the element of assault which was not even alleged in the charge-sheet. The evidence on record shows that, when the two employees, i.e. the Petitioner and his colleague, Marathe, entered the department to question Kaibhor as to the propriety of he, a Record Clerk, interfering with and carrying out the work of packing, Marathe was carrying a saw in his hand. The evidence on record shows that, when the two employees, i.e. the Petitioner and his colleague, Marathe, entered the department to question Kaibhor as to the propriety of he, a Record Clerk, interfering with and carrying out the work of packing, Marathe was carrying a saw in his hand. The contemporaneous complaint of Kaibhor made on 19th November, 1982 clearly states that Marathe was carrying a saw in his hand and that the teeth of the said saw touched his shirt as a result of which the shirt tore slightly. Kaibhor in his letter dated 19th November, 1982 complained only about interference by the Petitioner and Marathe in the work which had been lawfully assigned to him. It is unfortunate that the Enquiry Officer in his findings (pages 24 to 45 of the Writ Petition) has gone haywire on this issue. In fact, the perversity of approach of the Enquiry Officer was evident from the way in which he formulated the second charge for consideration introducing that the two delinquent employees had "assaulted Shri J.V. Kaibhor, Record Clerk." The evidence on the issue indicates that Establishment Officer, Sadhak, had maintained that he did not remember any details of the incidents of 18th and 19th November, 1982. Kaibhor himself stated in his evidence before the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner and Marathe had come up to him and questioned him as to why he was carrying out the work of Hamal, exhorting "Cobbler should do cobbler's work and Scavenger should do scavenger's work." Despite this state of evidence, and his own summing up by the Enquiry Officer: "Sufficient evidence did not come to the light as to whether shirt of Shri Kaibhor was torn by the saw in the hand of Shri Marathe. The contention of the charge-sheeted employees about this incidence (sic) is not borne by the evidence of any other employee. "They are, therefore, found guilty of the 2nd charge." The Enquiry Officer has held the second charge of assault on Kaibhor proved. The approach of the Enquiry Officer displays perversity and a prejudiced mind to reach, perhaps, an objective which was pre-determined. It is unfortunate that the Industrial Tribunal, for lack of application of mind, failed to realise this. I, therefore, agree with the contention of Shri Taisania that the Tribunal's findings on Issues No. 2 and 3 are themselves perverse. The approach of the Enquiry Officer displays perversity and a prejudiced mind to reach, perhaps, an objective which was pre-determined. It is unfortunate that the Industrial Tribunal, for lack of application of mind, failed to realise this. I, therefore, agree with the contention of Shri Taisania that the Tribunal's findings on Issues No. 2 and 3 are themselves perverse. I also accept the contention that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse." 6. Shri Taisania then contended that, instead of remanding the matter for re-trial, this Court itself should look at the surviving charges. Shri Taisania pointed out that the findings of the Enquiry Officer even on the surviving two charges are equally perverse. Further, even assuming that the two charges are held to be proved, he contends that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate punishment. 7. Charge No. 1 is formulated by the Enquiry Officer in paragraph 3 of his report. The charge was that, on 18th November, 1982, the Petitioner and his colleague disturbed the functioning of the department and displayed utter disregard for the work assigned to them and instructions given to them by the superiors. The Enquiry Officer specifically mentions in his report that the evidence to prove this charge was mainly from H.S. Sadhak. It appears from a reading of the Enquiry Officer's report that, apart from merely forwarding his initial report, Sadhak gave no oral evidence before the Enquiry Officer but stated that he did not remember any details about the incidents of 18th and 19th November, 1982. Apart from Sadhak, though there were two other witnesses examined, the Enquiry Officer discarded their testimony by saying that the evidence given by the other witnesses did not throw any light on the facts about the happenings of 18th November, 1982. Thus, it appears that the Enquiry Officer has merely acted on the initial complaint of H.S. Sadhak, without there being any evidence before him as to details. 8. Turning then to the third charge, the charge was that the Petitioner left the department after the incident in the morning at about 11.45 a.m. and did not return till 3.30 p.m. inspite of sending messages repeatedly. Here, the Petitioner's defence was that he and Marathe had gone away to the Machine Department and carried out work there. 8. Turning then to the third charge, the charge was that the Petitioner left the department after the incident in the morning at about 11.45 a.m. and did not return till 3.30 p.m. inspite of sending messages repeatedly. Here, the Petitioner's defence was that he and Marathe had gone away to the Machine Department and carried out work there. Sadhak, who was the material witness, maintained that he remembered nothing about the details of the incident. For this reason the Enquiry Officer has discarded the testimony of the Petitioner and Marathe by observing that their say of going to the Machine Department for work appears to be an afterthought, probably inspired from Sadhak's stand that he did not remember the other details of the two dates., Here, too, the contention of Shri Taisania that the Enquiry Officer's findings were perverse appears justified. 9. Assuming, for a moment, that there was some evidence and charges 1 and 3 could be held proved against the Petitioner, even then, in my view, the dismissal order issued to the Petitioner was harsh and disproportionate punishment. There appears to be no careful application of mind to the facts and circumstances, including the past record of the Petitioner, before the Order of Dismissal was imposed. Even in the second Show Cause Notice proposing the punishment of dismissal, there is no reference to the past record of the Petitioner, nor is there any application of mind to the past record of the Petitioner even in the Order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner. In the Order of dismissal dated 1st February, 1984, there is no mention that the length of service of the Petitioner or his past record was considered. The Tribunal also appears to have very casually dealt with the contention as to harshness of punishment, as the discussion in paragraph 13 of the impugned Award would show. It was contended in the Written Statement of the First Respondent that the behaviour of the Petitioner and his work habits were not satisfactory, that there were numerous complaints against him from his superiors regarding disobedience of directions and that he was given oral warnings frequently, and the penalty of reduction of his salary by three stages was imposed in the past. The Tribunal seems to have accepted all these averments without any material on record to support them, on the facile argument that the bad past record of the Petitioner had not been denied by him in his affidavit. In any event, I do not think that this was a case warranting imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal, after service of about 18 years. 10. On an overall assessment, in my opinion, even assuming the Petitioner found guilty of the two very minor charges 1 and 2, he ought not to have been punished with more than written warning, and the imposition of punishment of dismissal was wholly disproportionate. 11. In the circumstances, the Petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned Award of the Tribunal dated 18th June, 1991 made in Reference No. C.G.I.T. 2/28 of 1986 is hereby quashed and set aside. The First Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity and full back-wages, except for period of suspension. The First Respondent shall, however, be at liberty to administer a written warning to the Petitioner with regard to charges 1 and 3, apart from confirming his suspension. The deprivation of full wages for the period of suspension and a written warning should be condign punishment. Rule accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. 12. Certified copy expedited.