The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of employment rules, specifically the determination of misconduct under the relevant provisions and the impact of technical flaws on the validity of inquiry proceedings.

A.K. Sikri, J.-On 26.12.1972, the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the services of the respondent No.2 bank. In November 1992, he was still working as a peon when Smt. Raj Kali lodged her complaint on 22.11.1992 alleging that she had given Rs. 600/- to the petitioner for depositing in her savings bank account, but he did not deposit the same and made fictitious entry in her pass-book. Exact allegations in this behalf are contained in the charge-sheet dated 17.6.1980, which was served upon the petitioner, alleging as under:

"On 22.11.1982, Smt. Raj Kali, Account holder of No. 18771 of B.O. Modi Nagar (who is your neighbour and whose account was opened with your introduction) gave you Rs. 600/- to deposit the same in her account along with her pass book. You did not deposit the said money in her account but made a fictitious entry of Rs. 600/- with the bank and put your initials in the pass book. You have, thus, cheated a customer of the bank, and have misused your official position and defrauded the bank. This Act on your part tentamount to gross misconduct in terms of para 19.5(J) of the Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 making your liable for disciplinary action."

2. The petitioner denied the charges by submitting his reply; departmental enquiry was ordered and the enquiry commenced on 21.11.1983. While this inquiry was in progress, Smt. Raj Kali addressed a letter dated 15.12.1983 to the Manager of the respondent Bank in which it was stated that she had not made any complaint on the basis of which inquiry was started and in fact, she had not given Rs. 600/- to the petitioner for depositing in her account. The Bank still decided to proceed with the enquiry. Inquiry proceedings were concluded on 22.3.1984 on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.5.1984 holding that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Show cause Notice dated 30/31.7.1984 was served upon the petitioner. Personal hearing was also accorded. Thereafter, punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner vide orders dated 21.9.1984. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed on 6.5.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial dispute. Dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short the CGIT) with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Shri Suresh Chand, peon from service w.e.f 21.9.1984 is justified If not, to what relief the workman is entitled."

3. Parties appeared before the CGIT. The petitioner filed his statement of claim to which written statement was filed by the respondent followed by rejoinder of the petitioner. Evidence was recorded. The learned Presiding Officer, CGIT, has given his award dated 28.12.1989 in the said ID No. 91/87 holding that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in para 19.12(a) of the Bipartite Settlement Agreement and also that principles of natural justice were fully observed. He has, thus, held that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent Bank is legal and valid and fully justified. Challenging this a ward, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. The Division Bench issued Rule in this petition on 18.2.1992 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 600/- along with interest in the savings bank account of Smt. Raj Kali. In compliance to that order, the petitioner deposited demand draft dated 4.3.1992 in the sum of Rs. 935.80. in the account of Smt. Raj Kali.

5. Perusal of the award of the CGIT would show that the petitioner had challenged the fairness and justness of the enquiry on the following grounds:

"1. That there was no legally admission or substantive evidence in as much as the complainant namely Smt. Raj Kali has not been produced as a witness;

2. That opinion of the handwriting expert could not have been relied upon;

3. That the inquiry was bad for the reason tha