R K SACHDEVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri R.K. Sachdeva, has challenged the order dated 24th October, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.342 of 1999 titled Shri R.K. Sachdeva v. Union of India and others dismissing his Original Application filed against the order of the appellate authority and disciplinary authority in dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner were that as a Junior Engineer while officiating as Assistant Engineer (Installation) during the period 1984-86 in the office of General Manager, he committed gross misconduct by misappropriating the government money by fabricating and inflating bills of items purchased locally. The imputation against the petitioner were also that he did not maintain any record for the items which were locally purchased and he exceeded his financial powers for making cash payment to private parties. The charges framed against the petitioners were communicated to him which were denied by him, therefore, an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer after a detailed inquiry found the petitioner guilty of charges made against him and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal. The appellate authority also upheld the punishment imposed on the petitioner considering the gravity of charges.

(3.) While the appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner had filed another original application being OA No.2185 of 1991. By order dated 1st April, 1997, the said OA was allowed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law. However, during the pendency of the OA No.2185 of 1991 the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of disciplinary authority passing an order of dismissal was decided by order dated 12th April, 1993. However, since the Tribunal had directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law, the appeal was reconsidered afresh and was decided again and the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner was upheld again by order dated 21st December, 1998.