DTC Vs. SATISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A.No.2254/2009.

(2.) Satish Chand, the respondent was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal and was aggrieved by the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order removing him from service after an inquiry was held and the Appellate Authority had rendered him partial justice by modifying the penalty imposed and replaced the same by directing that two increments would be withheld without cumulative effect and the period Satish Kumar remained under suspension would be treated as "no work no wages" i.e. the result was that the period spent on suspension resulted in only subsistence allowance flowing to the coffers of Satish Chand and not salary.

(3.) The procedure prescribed by law for imposition of penalty was ostensibly followed and it is not a subject matter of issue whether compliance with the procedure of law was made or not.