(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 31/5/2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.3072/2014, vide which original application preferred by the respondent has been allowed. The petitioner also assails the order dtd. 16/7/2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in RA No. 129/2016, whereby the review application preferred by the respondent came to be allowed by correcting typographical error.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent by directing reduction by one stage in the time scale of his pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect, is wholly perverse. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the penalty was imposed on the respondent after due departmental proceedings and, therefore, ought not to have been interfered with. Merely because no action could be taken against the Chief Engineer and the Commissioner (Land), who were also responsible for the incident which led to the imposition of penalty on the respondent, it could not be said that the penalty imposed on the respondent was illegal in any manner. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that no departmental proceedings could be initiated against the aforesaid two officers due to unavoidable circumstances; while the Chief Engineer already stood superannuated by the time the investigation in respect of the lapse came to be completed, the Commissioner (Land), who was an Indian Administrative Services Officer, stood repatriated to his parent department. He, therefore, prays that impugned order be set aside.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order was not passed only on account of no action being taken against the Chief Engineer and the Commissioner (Land). He submits that the learned Tribunal found that the respondent, being the junior most officer in the hierarchy, had strictly acted as per the written instructions of the Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer concerned, who in turn, in their note, had stated that the decision was taken on the instructions of the Commissioner (Land). He, therefore, contends that there is no infirmity with the impugned order and prays that the writ petition be dismissed.