(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1635/2007.
(2.) Addressing arguments, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate submits that the respondent was caught red handed with 200 pouches of tobacco in a polythene bag beneath his driving seat while he was deployed on ambulance van DBL 9925 and this was detected by one Mr. Raj Kumar, Constable while the coach was in the process of unloading. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has arrived at a wrong finding by taking a view that it was a case of no evidence whereas the petitioner got examined two important witnesses i.e. one Mr. R.N. Meena and Mr. Ram Phal to prove the articles of charges framed against the respondent. Counsel also submits that the respondent himself had signed the seizure memo and therefore, he could not dispute the recovery of the said pouches from him. Counsel also submits that the presence of Raj Kumar was recorded in the very first inquiry but later, he could not be produced because of the fact that the Battalion of which he was a part had moved out to a far of place in the South.
(3.) Rebutting the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.D. Bhandari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the Tribunal has rightly held that it is a case of no evidence as none of the material witnesses were examined by the petitioner department. Counsel also submits that this was a third inquiry which was held against the respondent and even in this inquiry, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence or any material witness to prove the articles of charge framed against him. Counsel also submits that even the evidence produced by the petitioner does not extend any support to the case of the petitioner rather, their evidence lends support to the defence set up by the respondent.