JUDGMENT : D.G. DESHPANDE, J. 1. The petitioner/appellant is the employer and Respondent No. 1 is the employee. The employee was discharged from service by the petitioner pursuant to enquiry held against him for his misconduct. Charge-sheet in that regard was served on the Respondent No. 1 on Junel7, 1985 and he was discharged from service from, January 31, 1986. The matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). By part-I award the CGIT came to the conclusion that enquiry was fair and proper but by part II of the award dated June, 10, 1991 the punishment of discharge was found to disproportionate and unjustified, even though the CGIT came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and the employee was guilty of misconduct. Consequently, the dismissal was not in the opinion of the CGIT warranted and discharge order was set aside. The petitioner challenged the order by filing writ petition before this Court and the same was, heard and decided by Justice Kapadia by his order dated December 14,1994. The learned Single Judge, came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the employee-Respondent No. 1 was not entitled for reinstatement but the learned Single Judge, after considering the pecuniary defects of the employee, the fact that the consignment was ultimately delivered to the customer and that the petitioner did not suffer any loss, ordered payment of back-wages upto December 15, 1994 The order of the learned Single Judge is challenged by the petitioner-employer by this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appeared for the respondent. We find that even the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the CGIT that the inquiry was fair and proper and also upheld that the employee was guilty of misconduct. However, when these two circumstances were accepted by the learned Single Judge, we find that there were no reason to take lenient view to show mercy to the employee-respondent and order payment of back-wages for more than 3 and half years, particularly when the order of discharging him from service of the Inquiry Officer and of the CGIT was not found to be faulty or defective. 3. It has come on record that on May 13, 1985 the respondent employee tried to assault the customer with motor cycle chain for no fault of the customer. 3. It has come on record that on May 13, 1985 the respondent employee tried to assault the customer with motor cycle chain for no fault of the customer. This is a serious circumstance, particularly when the customer had not given any provocation to the respondent-employee. The fault was of the employee in not delivering the goods as per the order of the employer. Finding of the Inquiry Officer and on reference to the CGIT regarding the entire conduct of the employee did not therefore, warrant any lenient view in the matter. Explanation given by the employee and the defence raised by him were not found to be genuine and bona-fide, even by the learned Single Judge, and, therefore, for all these reasons we have no option but to allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge directing the petitioner-employer to pay back wages to the employee. As a result, we pass the following order: ORDER: Appeal is allowed. The order of discharge issued by the appellant company is upheld and the order of the learned Single Judge granting full back wages and benefits to the Respondent No. 1 is set aside. No order as to costs.