(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated August 31, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in Original Application No.1804/1998, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the orders dated August 27, 1997 of the Disciplinary Authority and February 11, 1998 passed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) The brief facts are that while working as a Sub Inspector the respondent was proceeded against at a regular departmental enquiry on the allegation that on the intervening night of February 12/13, 1996, one passenger named as Tal Margalit a National of Israel, accompanied with one male passenger, approached the immigration check post, IGI Airport, New Delhi and reported at the counter where respondent was working as a Clearing Officer. Stamp No.E-12/D was issued to him and computer No.3 was installed at his counter. Ms.Tal Margalit had overstayed in India and the respondent after accepting Rs. 1,000/- from the said passenger gave immigration clearance to her. The flight in question was cancelled due to foggy weather and consequently the immigration clearance of all the passengers was cancelled. The passenger again reported for immigration clearance the next date. She was questioned by the clearing officer about her overstay and was off loaded. She claimed to have paid Rs. 1,000/- to the Clearing Officer, meaning thereby, she had paid the requisite charges for the overstay to be regularised. The passengers submitted a written complaint that she had paid Rs. 1,000/- to the Clearing Officer for immigration clearance due to overstay.
(3.) The Inquiry Officer completed the departmental proceedings and submitted his findings dated June 23, 1997, concluding that the charge against the respondent stood proved. Vide its order dated August 27, 1997 the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service permanently for a period of five years with consequent reduction in pay from Rs. 1,760/- per month to Rs. 1,640/- per month in time scale of pay for a period of five years. It was directed that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period and on expiry of the period, the deduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.