UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, (LABOUR WELFARE) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE WELFARE COMMISSIONER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY LABOUR WELFARE ORGANISATION Vs. J. REVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner called in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 9.4.2013 in OA No. 238/2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 1.12.2011 and reinstating the respondent back into service with effect from 1.12.2011 with all consequential benefits. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records is that respondent - -Smt. J. Revathi was appointed as a Staff Nurse with effect from 6.1.1993 under the Ministry of Labour and Employment of Government of India. During the year 2010, she was transferred from Sira to Kannur vide order dated 27.10.2009 on the allegations that she has refused to receive the said transfer order and misbehaved with her superior official during the working hours in the office and shown willful dis-obedience. Due to her riotous and dis-orderly behavior during the office hours and unauthorized absence from duty, the petitioner No. 3-Disciplinary Authority has issued the memorandum of articles of charges containing five articles of charge dated 30.4.2010 to the respondent. Thereafter, conducting disciplinary proceedings as per law against the respondent, she was removed from service vide order dated 1.12.2011. The respondent has preferred an appeal against the said order of the dismissal before the second petitioner and the said appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.4.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein challenged the said order of dismissal from service dated 1.12.2011 passed by the third respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in OA No. 238/2012 and sought for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The tribunal by its order impugned under this Writ Petition has allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.

(2.) WE have in detail heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and as well the respondent. We have also carefully perused the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority, as well the Central Administrative Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Vasudev Rao is that the Central Administrative Tribunal has virtually reevaluated the entire evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer and totally upset the order of the Disciplinary Authority without there being any proper and reasonable ground for reinstating the respondent. The evidence recorded and findings given by the Inquiry Officer and as well as the factual appreciation by the Disciplinary Authority have been totally ignored by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with by this court in exercising the powers conferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING heard the arguments of the learned counsels we have given our anxious considerations to the material on record and we have carefully perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.