UNION OF INDIA Vs. K. SUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 passed in OA No.1566/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal ) allowing the original application filed by the applicant/respondent herein and quashing the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority under Rule 29(1)(v) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'Rules, 1965) revising the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21/22.3.2013 holding that the order was passed beyond the period of six months stipulated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965, and also the applicant is entitled to consequential benefits pursuant to his compulsory retirement following the order of the Disciplinary Authority and is also entitled to admissible benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original application before the Tribunal.

(3.) Applicant filed Original Application No.1566/2013 to quash the memorandum impugned therein contending that he entered the services as Postman with effect from 17.3.1984 and thereafter he was promoted as Postal Assistant and rendered unblemished service all along, but while he was working at HAL II Stage, Head office, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against him and he was convicted vide judgment dated 31.8.2012. Against the said judgment, the applicant filed Crl.A No.1119/2012 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 4.10.2012 suspended the sentence and the matter is still pending. He was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. After the cessation of master servant relationship, respondent No.3 vide memo dated 24.5.2013 proposed to enhance the punishment suomoto from compulsory retirement to dismissal from service by exercising the power under Rule 29 of Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant made a representation on 10.6.2013 to stop the proposed action on various grounds. The said representation was not considered and ultimately the applicant came to be dismissed from service on 5.2.2014. An application before the Tribunal came to be amended (Annexure-A4). The Tribunal considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 allowed the application and quashed the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.