ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 26th February, 2003, passed in CWJC No. 2578 of 1995(R), whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, modified part of the award regarding payment of backwages in favour of the workmen, to the extent that the backwages was reduced to 10%. from 25%. 2. Two workmen, namely, Girja Singh and Brij Nandan Singh, were in the services of the appellant M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as "M/s. B.C.C.L.") were charged with the allegation that they assaulted Sri M.K. Kirmani, Safety Officer, with fists and blows at about 8.15 a.m. on 4th April, 1981. For the same set of charges, while an FIR was lodged against the workmen, departmental proceeding was also initiated against them. During pendency of the criminal case, the enquiry officer held enquiry and submitted enquiry report on 20th July, 1981, holding both of them guilty of the charges. The management of M/s. B.C.C.L., thereafter, dismissed both the workmen vide order dated 20th August, 1981. 3. Being aggrieved, the workmen raised dispute and at their instance, Reference Case No. 99 of 1986 was instituted. 4. The criminal case, instituted against the workmen by the management of M/s. B.G.C.L for the same set of charges on the basis of same evidence, ended in acquittal in favour of the workmen by judgment dated 30th April, 1984, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chas, in G.R. No. 293 of 1981. 5. The Tribunal answered the reference against the workmen and upheld the order of dismissal, which was challenged by the Union of the workmen before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 708 of 1988 (R) (Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh v. Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. No. 2, Dhanbad and others) 6. Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court remitted back the case to the Presiding Officer with an observation that the award was vitiated as the Tribunal has omitted to decide the question, which was very important i.e. whether the punishment of dismissal was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case and, if not, whether lesser punishment would have served the ends of justice. 7. 7. After remand, the case was reconsidered by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, on the question of quantum of punishment i.e. "whether the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the charges or not?" By the impugned award dated 10th July, 1995, passed in Reference Case No. 99 of 1986, learned Presiding Officer while observed that the departmental enquiry was made in accordance with law, held the order of punishment to be disproportionate, having been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice, taking into consideration the fact that the workmen were acquitted by a competent court of criminal jurisdiction for the same set of offence, on the basis of the same set of evidence/witnesses, but were held guilty in the departmental proceeding. It was, accordingly, ordered to reinstate the workmen, maintaining their seniority but to deprive them of two increments with further order that the workmen will not receive more than 25% of the backwages for the period, they remained out of service. 8. Being aggrieved, the management of M/s. B.C.C.L challenged the award dated 10th July, 1995, passed in Reference Case No. 99 of 1986 before the learned single Judge vide CWJC No. 2578 of 1995(R). The learned single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 26th February, 2003 while refused to interfere with the award, passed by the Tribunal, modified the same to the extent that the backwages was reduced from 25% to 10%, which was in favour of the management i.e. the said modification was in favour of the management. 9. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant/management of M/s. B.C.C.L. highlighted the offence, committed by the workmen, and submitted that the charge of assault to the officer, having been proved in the departmental proceeding any punishment, lesser than the dismissal from service, will be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It was submitted that the award being perverse even with respect to the quantum of punishment, this Court can interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 324 . 10. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 324 . 10. Having heard the parties and perused the award as also the order, passed by the learned single Judge, we find that the workmen are out of service for last about 23 years. The allegation, as was made against them, was that of criminal in, nature, which was not found proved and consequent thereto, they were acquitted of such criminal offences by the competent court of criminal Jurisdiction. However, for such criminal offences, a departmental proceeding was initiated, wherein strict principles of Evidence Act, are not required to be followed and they were found guilty for the same set of offence. But we have noticed the finding of the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, that the order of dismissal was passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. 11. In our view, the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others, as referred to above, is different. In the said case, respondent No. 1 was found guilty in the departmental proceeding. There, it was not the case that the workman was held not guilty and acquitted in the criminal proceeding for the same set of charges for the same set of offences, which was placed on same set of evidences. 12. If the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, having applied his mind and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments, denying major part of the backwages, we find no ground to be made out to interfere with the judgment, passed by the learned single Judge. There being no merit, this appeal is hereby dismissed.