UNION OF INDIA Vs. MURARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Union of India assails in this writ petition order dated 15th October, 1999 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, allowing OA.No. 1142/96, filed by the respondent Murari Lal and quashing the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed vide order dated 29th March, 1996. The Tribunal also directed reinstatement of respondent Murari Lal with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowance. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as period spent on duty. Direction was also issued to act on the recommendation of the DPC, kept in a sealed cover and depending thereon promote the respondent with effect from the date his immediate juniors were promoted.

(2.) PETITIONER seeks to justify the order of compulsory retirement, claiming that the decision to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement had been taken by the Disciplinary Authority, after deep consideration of the evidence available. The said decision had been approved by the Committee of Secretaries. The punishment of compulsory retirement was also sought to be justified on the basis of the need to maintain probity among senior officers of a sensitive organization like the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Tribunal is also alleged to have misdirected itself in re -appraising the evidence, which was not permissible to be done in appellate jurisdiction.

(3.) INQUIRY Officer submitted the Inquiry report on 29.4.1993, holding the respondent not guilty of charges. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the report and the matter was sent to Central Vigilance Commission for further inquiry. In the further inquiry Neeraj Jain, principal complainant, was examined as a witness. On 23.3.1995, Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding only the charge of threatening the complainant and not recording entry of stay in the NIC Guest house, as proved. CVC advised for acceptance of the Inquiry Officer's report and recommended for imposition of a major penalty. The case was sent to UPSC for statutory advice. UPSC advised exoneration of the respondent on 8.9.1995 for the reason that the complaint which formed basis of the charge sheet, did not contain the initials of the officer who received it, the complainant had retracted from it and had stated it to be written as per the dictation of CBI officers. The Inquiry Officer had also conceded that there were doubts about the authenticity of the taped telephonic conversation, which formed basis of the alleged demand of illegal gratification. Relevant portions from the advice of UPSC are quoted below: