UOI Vs. ANIL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2008 the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed OA No.1915/2007 filed by the respondent and has quashed the charge sheet issued against the respondent on the ground that there has been delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, secondly that it is a case where a decision has already been taken to punish the respondent and the proposed disciplinary proceedings are a mere ruse and lastly that the misdemeanour alleged against the respondent did not attract moral turpitude and since the respondent had retired from service penalty as contemplated by Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 could not be inflicted.

(2.) It may be noted at the outset that the Inquiry Officer was yet to complete the inquiry when the proceedings got interdicted as a result of the respondent petitioning the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) Employed as a Superintending Engineer (Electrical) certain lapses pertaining to the working of the respondent and one Sh.O.P.Nayer, Executive Engineer came to the notice of the superior authorities in the year 1998. The alleged lapses pertained to certain decisions taken by the respondent on 5.5.1993. Accordingly, the matter was scrutinized at the departmental level resulting in a memo dated 4.9.1998 being served upon the respondent seeking his explanation regarding approval granted by him on 5.5.1993 for procurement of Mirror Optics Fluorescent Fittings alleging that existing fittings in working condition were unnecessarily replaced by purchasing expensive fittings and that too without examining the technical/financial stability. It was further alleged against the respondent that on 8.6.1993, 7.7.1993 and 25.8.1993 he accorded five approvals to five estimated works totaling Rs.9,52,516/- in contravention of Section 1.8 of CPWD Manual Vol. II. The respondent was called upon to furnish explanation within 10 days.