Order Aggrieved by award dated 22.05.2012 in Reference No. 301 of 2001, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on the allegation of assaulting his superior namely, Sunil Kumar Karn on 29.12.1997, the respondent-workman was issued a chargesheet on 13.01.1998. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent-workman in which the enquiry officer submitted report dated 21.12.1998 holding the charge in terms of Clause 35.4, 35.5, 35.6 and 35.7 proved. Second show-cause notice dated 27.01.1999 was issued to the respondent-workman and along with the second show-cause notice, a copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to the respondent-workman. Vide order dated 23.06.1999, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CMPDI passed an order of dismissal of the respondent-workman from service of the company. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in the following terms : “Whether the dismissal of Md. Islam, Ex-Driver by the management of Central Mine Planning Design Institute Ltd., Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi is proper and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled.” 3. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 22.05.2012 in Reference Case No. 301/2001 held the dismissal of the respondent-workman from service, illegal and accordingly, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with full backwages. 4. The petitioner CMPDI, Ranchi has filed supplementary affidavit dated 11.03.2015 bringing on record the relevant documents which were placed before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 301 of 2001. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was the appellate authority who has passed the order of dismissal of the respondent-workman from service of the company, the Reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman. It is further submitted that though, it was held by the Tribunal that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was fair, proper and in consonance of the rules of natural justice, without recording a finding that the dismissal of the respondent-workman was illegal, full backwages has been awarded to the respondent-workman. 7. It is further submitted that though, it was held by the Tribunal that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was fair, proper and in consonance of the rules of natural justice, without recording a finding that the dismissal of the respondent-workman was illegal, full backwages has been awarded to the respondent-workman. 7. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman supports the award dated 22.05.2012 and submits that serious prejudice has been caused to the respondent-workman and the respondent workman was deprived of the statutory right of appeal, in as much as, the order of dismissal was passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director who was the appellate authority at the relevant time. Relying on a decision in “Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others”, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 474 , the learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the dismissal of the respondent by the appellate authority was liable to be quashed and therefore, the learned Industrial Tribunal has rightly passed order dated 22.05.2012 directing the petitioner CMPDI to reinstate the respondent-workman with full backwages. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. From the materials brought on record, it appears that on the allegation that the respondent-workman along with another employee abused and assaulted one Sunil Kumar Karn, Senior Geologist who was a senior officer of the respondent-workman. A chargesheet was issued to the respondent-workman on 13.01.1998 and in the departmental proceeding, a report was submitted on 21.12.1998 holding as under. “53.6 Md. Islam and Sri R.N. Singh then assaulted Sri Karn. 53.7. The abuse and the assault on Sri Karn is being supported by the complaint and the statement of Sri Karn. …........................................................................ ............................................................................ 53.15 Besides the above, there is the complaint and statement of Sri Karn which has amply proved the presence of Md. Islam alongwith Sri R.N. Singh at the time of the incident inside his (Sri Karn's) office room. 53.16 Assault on Sri Karn by Sri R.N. Singh and Md. Islam is proved by his complaint and own statement. This is also corroborated by the telephonic talk he had on the same day with Sri Khare immediately after the assault on him. …........................................................................ ........................................................................... 53.16 Assault on Sri Karn by Sri R.N. Singh and Md. Islam is proved by his complaint and own statement. This is also corroborated by the telephonic talk he had on the same day with Sri Khare immediately after the assault on him. …........................................................................ ........................................................................... 53.36 In view of the circumstances explained above and listening to both the parties and the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against Md. Islam as enumerated earlier as statement of facts in this report as stated in the Chargesheet together with the facts of the case at 35.4, 35.5, 35.6 and 35.7 are proved which constitutes misconduct under the clauses 26.16, 26.18, 26.22, 26.27 of the Certified Standing Orders of CMPDI. Description of the charges in the form of statement of facts and the corresponding applicable clauses have already been shown in the detailed report, above.” 10. It is pertinent to note that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in its order dated 22.05.2012 has recorded that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair, proper and according to the rules of natural justice. From a perusal of the award dated 22.05.2012 it is apparent that the only ground on which the dismissal of the respondent-workman has been held not proper and not justified was that the Chairman-cum-Managing director was the appellate authority, who passed the order of dismissal of the respondent-workman on 23.06.1999. It is a matter of record that, the respondent-workman filed writ petition being W.P. 21053(W) of 1993 and pursuant to order dated 21.06.2002, the representation of the petitioner (in W.P. 21053(W) of 1993 with CAN. No. 3936/02) dated 23.07.1999 has been treated as appeal by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited. The statutory remedy of appeal available to the respondent-workman has been availed by the respondent-workman and thus, it cannot be contended that the respondent-workman suffered serious prejudice because the order of dismissal dated 23.06.1999 was passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CMPDI. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the award dated 22.05.2012 suffers from serious infirmity which warrants interference by this court and accordingly, award dated 22.05.2012 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 12. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1475 of 2013 and I.A. No. 6634 of 2014 stands disposed of. Petition allowed.