UNION OF INDIA Vs. CONT PARAMVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein was served with the charge-sheet dated 8.10.2000 alleging that he was taking entry fee, i.e., illegal gratification from a truck driver. In the summary of allegations the charge against the respondent was in the following terms:

(2.) Incidentally, it may be mentioned at this stage that same charge was leveled against Head Constable Tejender Singh as well as is clear from the aforesaid summary of allegations. A joint enquiry was held. After the conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry officer returned his findings holding that the charge of corruption framed against both the delinquent officers could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter he recorded as under:

(3.) Treating that this was a second charge levelled against the respondent and was proved the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of increments for a period of two years. Before imposition of this punishment copy of the enquiry report was given to the respondent as well as to the head constable Tejinder Singh. In his representation the respondent had submitted that the charge of taking bribe had not been proved and the enquiry officer had gone beyond his brief by alleging the aforesaid charge as proved which was not a charge levelled in the summary of allegations. Insofar as head constable Tejinder Singh is concerned he was given the punishment of censure and he accepted the same. However,. respondent herein filed an appeal against this order to the appellate authority which was also dismissed and thereafter he challenged the punishment by filing application before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. The aforesaid contention of the respondent, namely, there was no such charge framed against the respondent has been accepted by the Tribunal and the impugned punishment order is quashed. The Tribunal while taking this course of action as given its observation as under: