JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---Shri Jamdar by referring to the judgment and Award passed by the Industrial Court of Solapur in Complaint (U.L.P.) 1/1987 submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in interpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (P.) Ltd. v. Workmen Employed Represented by Firestone Tyre Employees Union)1, reported in 1981(3) Supreme Court Cases 451. Wherein the Supreme Court held that: "Normally an inquiry by the management starts by issuing a charge-sheet to the workmen proposed to be discharged or dismissed. In a case where the charge-sheet is vague or improper, it must be held that there has been no proper enquiry. In such a situation the Tribunal has to ask the parties to lead evidence and decide the dispute on merits." Supreme Court further held in the case which was before it: "The Tribunals order setting aside the dismissal of the workmen and directing their reinstatement without a consideration of the merits of the case cannot be sustained. The case, therefore, must be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits after giving the concerned parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases." 2. Shri Jamdar pointed out that in the present matter the material was sufficient for the Industrial Court to adjudicate the subject point and to decide by itself whether the respondent had committed the "misconduct" in view of Standing Rules of Solapur Municipal Corporation Bus Service (Transport Department). Shri Jamdar further submitted that in the present case it was obligatory on the part of the Industrial Court to come to the conclusion that the said inquiry was fairly conducted and the respondent was rightly punished. In this context Shri Jamdar read out a letter, which was, according to Shri jamdar, a charge-sheet. Shri Jamdar further submitted that this petition be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court be quashed by granting a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. 3. In the present case, one increment of the respondent has been withheld by the petitioners concerned officer on behalf of the petitioner Municipal Corporation. The said order has been passed on 8-10-1985. 3. In the present case, one increment of the respondent has been withheld by the petitioners concerned officer on behalf of the petitioner Municipal Corporation. The said order has been passed on 8-10-1985. The respondent was punished for his alleged misconduct on 4-6-1985 when according to the petitioners he abused, threatened the staff members of fire brigade department who had approached the respondent to take diesel supply to its vehicle. The respondent had contended in the said inquiry that the action which was proposed to be taken against him was not proper as he had not conducted himself in such a way which would be treated to be "misconduct". Not only that but in the complaint also he reiterated the same stand by contending that the said enquiry was not properly conducted and he was not given an opportunity of being heard. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court had pointed out the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Ltd.)2, reported in 1986(I) L.L.J. 490, wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that: "It is an implied condition of every agreement including a settlement that parties thereto will act in a conformity with the law, and such provision is not required to be expressly stated in any contract of employment." By pointing out the said ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.G. Chemicals case (supra) the learned Judge opined that the violation of the Standing Orders as well as not following the principles of natural justice, vitiated the said departmental enquiry which was conducted against the respondent. 4. The said settlement has been perused. In Clause No. 30 the various instructions for punishment have been mentioned in sub-clauses (1), (2), (A-1) to (Y). It is true that the alleged misconduct comes within the four corners of Clause 2(1) but the said settlement further points out that the said employee should not be removed from service unless a proper enquiry has been conducted against him. Clause 33 of the said settlement provides that after the charge has been proved, the punishment would be (a) admonish or warning (b) fine in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (c) suspension or dismissal without notice. Clause 33 of the said settlement provides that after the charge has been proved, the punishment would be (a) admonish or warning (b) fine in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (c) suspension or dismissal without notice. It is pertinent to note that the said settlement provides in sub-clause (2) of Clause 33 that unless opportunity of showing cause is given to such employee, no punishment should be inflicted on him. 5. When an enquiry is to be conducted against an employee, it is the duty of the employer to issue show cause notice to him, wherein the alleged allegations should be mentioned in a simple way by using simple sentences. It should be stated in a simple way as to what allegations have been made against him. The said show cause notice should also clearly mention that, he is entitled to show cause against the proposed enquiry to be held. Said employee should be given sufficient time to think over the said allegations or the imputations made against him and to make a submission in writing for showing cause as to why such enquiry should not be started against him. The time gap should be reasonable and sufficient enough to allow him to think over the said allegations or imputations. In other words, he should be given reasonable time for reflection. When that employee happens to be an illiterate person, that show cause notice needs to be utmost simple in language. Couching style and couching sentence, couching words should be avoided. It should indicate that the rule of natural justice is being followed in its real spirit. The employer should keep in mind that there should be no complicated words used or words which are likely to mislead the said employee. 6. In the present case the petitioners have used peculiar style of writing letter to the respondent and the letter does not show at all that he has been afforded the opportunity of showing the cause as to why the enquiry should not be initiated against him. The said letter which has been treated to be show cause notice by the petitioners, shows that he was directed to remain present in the office of the petitioners on 11-7-1985 at 1 p.m. The said letter is full of interpolations, scorings. The said letter which has been treated to be show cause notice by the petitioners, shows that he was directed to remain present in the office of the petitioners on 11-7-1985 at 1 p.m. The said letter is full of interpolations, scorings. No initials are made by the person who wrote those interpolated sentences in the said letter. The interpolating sentences are used in such a way which even prima facie shows that those sentences have been written by somebody afterwards for the purpose of making good the case which was already lost. This practice needs to be deprecated. It is by itself unfair in its nature. When the initial steps which were taken against the respondent for punishing him was unfair in its spirit, what could be said about its result which resulted in punishment against the respondent? 7. The said letter shows by one interpolated sentence that some employees may complain against respondent Choudhari. Second interpolated sentence shows that, there was complaint against Shri Choudhari, respondent by some employees. Third and last interpolated sentence shows that, the copy of the said complaint was annexed to said letter. The copy of the said complaint which was annexed to said letter is also embodying scoring at two places, one scoring in respect of date. The date is obviously changed. Second is about the name of the employee. The name of the employee has also been changed. The letter number has been also written afterwards, like date, as colour of its ink shows. Besides that, the said letter also shows that the date has been put by somebody later on because ink is obviously different. Shri Jamdar pointed out the original complaint to this Court. The complaint shows that somebody had written the date on the top of the said sheet, because the hand writing prima facie does not tally with the rest of the said complaint. When the said complaint was made on 5-6-1985, as per the case of the petitioners and when by said letter dated 8-7-1985 the respondent Choudhari was directed to appear in the office of the petitioners on 11-7-1985, another letter which has been addressed to Shri Choudhari, which is dated 7-8-1985, states that Shri Choudhari was directed to appear in the office in view of the said letter on 16-9-1985. Therefore, the date which has been introduced by interpolating the date as "11-7-1985" is contradictory with other letter which was addressed to Shri Choudhari on 16-7-1986. All these things show unfair practice which has been practised by the petitioners for holding enquiry, for conducting enquiry and thereafter punishing the respondent. 8. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court has not noticed all these things. However, his conclusion was right and befitting to the situation. In fact the learned Judge should have directed the petitioner Solapur Municipal Corporation to conduct the enquiry against the person who signed the said letter dated 8-7-1985. 9. When such is the conduct of the petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled to get a writ of certiorari or setting aside the judgment and Award passed by the Industrial Court which has been assailed by this petition. This Court does not find any impropriety incorrectness or illegality in the judgment and Award which has been passed by the Industrial Court and which has been assailed by this petition. The petitioners should have stopped after the judgment and Award passed by the Industrial Court by noticing its own misconduct as demonstrated in the above mentioned paragraph but it continued and therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs for avoiding repetition of such instances and for alarming the like-minded persons. The petitioners should make the enquiry against the person who signed letter dated 8-7-1985 and should find out as to who made interpolation in the relevant documents mentioned above and take appropriate legal action against such persons for the purpose of ensuring fair behaviour and fair treatment to all workmen working in the petitioner Corporation. 10. Petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to Shri Choudhari, respondent. The letters which have been referred to in above mentioned paragraphs were referred to by Shri Nitin Jamdar, Advocate in his submission and in view of this judgment and order the said letters are directed to be retained in the file of this matter. Shri Jamdar is hereby directed to take certified copies of it. The certified copies of these letters be also sent to the Municipal Commissioner of Solapur Municipal Corporation for taking necessary further action as indicated by this judgment. Petition dismissed. -----