B, a clerk in the appellant company, was found shouting and bel:\aving in a r:ide a.nd insolent manne~ it p.is superior officer.· In consequence of this incident a charge-sheet was issued o· him and he was asked to give his 'explan'ation for' his behaviour; he was also asked to give explanation fn reipect ofcc;rtain purchases made by him for the coffi.papy. '.Eventually" an enquiry was held by the Managing Director at which he found that two charges were made out, and on the basis of the findings the company dismissed B from his post.. In the letter by the Managing Director dated October 29, 19511, addressed to Bit was stated: "After giving, your matter .our very; careful consideration, we have, therefoe, painfully come to the decision that in the interest cif discipline and Business you should be forthwith dismissed from our ser,vice .. "· rn· taking this action against you we have also taken into consideration your past record which is very much against you." The Industrial Tribunal considered that the findings were based not merely on the charges set out in the charge-sheet but on certain other charges which B was not given on opportunity . to explain, and, therefore, the enquiry was vitiated and the dismissal could not be sustained. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the evidence and held that the allegation of insubordination against B was not proved, •I:t, accordingly, oraered his re-instatement.
