The Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, made in I.D.No.1/2006 dated 112. 2006 has been questioned in this petition, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to restore the petitioner cadre from Grade-3 to Grade-5 with a consequential promotion.

2. According to the petitioner, he was a former Army man with unblemished service and the Defence Officials have issued him a Conduct Certificate, while coming out of Army as "Exemplary". Though he was a former Army man, he was appointed as a Yardman in the 1st respondent Corporation on 20.3.1985. The 1st respondent is a Company owned by the Government of India and it is considered to be State as described in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The service of the petitioner was confirmed from 29. 1985. He was provided with a training in Fire Fighting and thereafter, he was transferred to Fire and Safety Section of the Manufacturing Department of the 1st respondent Company. The work of the Fire and Safety Section was to carry the work of treating dry chemical powder and due to the above said nature of work, his health got deteriorated, lungs were affected, blood vomiting followed that. Therefore, on the advice of the Medical Practitioner, he was transferred from Fire and Safety Section to another section. He had a request to post him in the A.P. Separator (OM&S). However, the company transferred him to the Invoice Cell from 2. 1995.

3. The petitioners further case is that Invoice Section is the Section which deals with the weighing of loaded vehicles inside the company premises at Manalai and taking print outs of invoices with gross and net weight of the loaded tankers/trucks. Since he was not having knowledge about the computers, he hesitated to join that section. But due to the advice of the superior, he joined that section wherein he was told to take out printout of invoices of gross and net weight of the loaded vehicles by pressing buttons. The printed invoice containing the reading of the weighing machine shall be sent to the Accounts Section everyday. Thereafter, he was transferred from the Invoice Cell to Maintenance Department from 18. 1997. While he was working there, a charge sheet was served on him on 10. 1997 stating that he had tampered with the records and caused loss to the company and further he was directed to submit his explanation within 48 hours. However, he submitted his explanation on 210. 1997 denying all the charges. He was under the expectation that his explanation would be accepted and the charges dropped. But, to his shock and surprise, the 1st respondent company issued another charge sheet after a lapse of 2 ½ months for the same alleged occurrence dated 2. 1997. In order to substantiate the 1st charge sheet, the 2nd charge sheet was issued against law. However, he submitted his explanation to the 2nd charge sheet on 1. 1998. Further, the charge sheet was issued in haste, directing him to submit his explanation within 48 hours, which action would go to show the urgent attitude of the 1st respondent company. The 1st respondent company without dropping the further proceedings for the 1st charge sheet has issued the second charge sheet, which is vitiated.

4. Also, it is the case of the petitioner that an Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry conducted without following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 7. 1998 stating that the charges were held proved. Based on the Enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of reduction of two grades from Grade-5 to Grade-3 on 11. 1999 without issuing any show cause notice to him before imposing any penalty. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 2. 1999 and it was pending more than 3 ½ years and rejected on 9. 2002. Against the rejection of his appeal by the 1st respondent, he made a complaint (Conciliation Proceedings) to t