The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and precise charges in disciplinary proceedings and clarifies that the failure to question the employee does not necessarily vitiate the enquiry.

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE to amend. The Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal held by an award dated 18th May, 1999 that the enquiry that was conducted against the first respondent stood vitiated due to a failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer have been held to be perverse. The action of the Port Trust in reducing the pay of the first respondent by four stages has been held not to be justified and the reference under section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 stands answered accordingly.

( 2 ) THE first respondent was working in the year 1991 as a Depot Superintendent in the Stores Department of Mumbai Port Trust and was attached to the stationary, uniforms and steel sections. The Port Trust had to store a huge quantity of coal in order to run its steam engines on Port Trust Railway lines. The steam engines were discontinued in 1990 and about 800 M. T. of coal was lying unused in the Loco Shed at Wadala. In August, 1989, a proposal was submitted to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees by the Chief engineer, Deputy Conservator, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Controller of Stores and the Additional Chief Accounts Officer to shirt the steam coal to an alternative site viz. the Wagon Repair shop, Grain Depot and the coal powder mixed with earth and stone to the Wadala incinerator. The proposal was approved by the Chairman on 28th August, 1989. It is alleged that the first respondent initiated action for disposing of 200 M. T. of steam coal through a limited tender in November, 1989 contrary to the orders of the Chairman and that he accordingly submitted a note on 8th November, 1989. It is alleged that the first respondent submitted that in accordance with the instructions of the Deputy Controller of Stores to another employee of the Port Trust, dealers in coal and coke from Sewn were taken to the coal shed at Wadala with a view to ascertain the value of the material lying there. It is further alleged that the first respondent submitted a note on 15th November, 1989 to the Controller of Stores to the effect that keeping in view the condition of the material, a rate of Rs. 128/- per metric ton plus 8% sales tax offered by a particular dealer was reasonable. It is alleged that the first respondent did not follow the office procedure of keeping a record of having obtained acknowledgements for tender documents. On this note of the first respondent, it is alleged that 200 MT of steam coal came to be disposed of though the first respondent was not concerned with the Disposal Department.

( 3 ) A charge-sheet was issued on 28th April, 1993 by the Controller of stores to the first respondent by which a departmental enquiry was convened. The articles of charge that were framed against the first respondent were broadly thus; (I) That the first respondent had failed to mam absolute integrity and devotion to duty, in that though under the approval granted by the chairman of the Port Trust on 26th August, 1989, steam coal was to be shifted to an alternative site, the first respondent disposed of 200 MT through limited tenders in violation of Regulation 3 (1) of the Bombay port Trust Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1975, (ii) That the first respondent submitted a note on 8th November, 1989 recording that in accordance with the instructions of the Deputy Controller to another employee, dealers were taken to the shed at Wadala with a view to ascertain the value of the material However, in a statement before the Assistant Chief Vigilance Officer, the first respondent confirmed that he had never visited the site either while submitting his note to the Controller or after completing the delivery of the material. It was alleged that the first respondent had furnished incorrect information and had accordingly violated Regulation 3 (1) of the Employees (Conduct) Regulations; (iii) The first respondent had submitted a note recording that the rate of Rs. 128