SANJAY PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short ,,the tribunal) in O.A. No.439/2011 whereby the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the stamp of approval given to it by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE facts, in a nut shell, are that the petitioner was working as a Daftari in the Income Tax Department and was posted in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, ITO, New Delhi. A prosecution was launched against him for offences punishable under Sections 419/467/468/471/120-B/511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ,,the IPC). During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner had preferred a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge assailing the order framing charge under Section 419 of the IPC. During the pendency of the revision, the criminal trial proceeded with the other charges. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 22.2.2006, quashed the charge framed under Section 419 of the IPC on the ground that no offence under Section 419 of the IPC had been disclosed against the revisionist. Despite the said order, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 419 read with Section 120-B of the IPC along with the offences under Sections 511 and 471 of the IPC. Being grieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate Court, while affirming the conviction, extended him the benefit under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ,,the CrPC). Eventually, he executed a bond and was released on probation of good conduct.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of removal, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and as there was delay in disposal of the appeal, he preferred O.A. No.970/2010 wherein the tribunal directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a cogent and germane order within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the appellate authority passed an order on 8.9.2010 affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority. The said orders came to be assailed before the tribunal.