UNION OF INDIA Vs. MUKESH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed that the order dated 25th April, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (herein after referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1144/2006 be set aside. By the impugned order, Tribunal has set aside the order dated 27th October, 2004 passed by Disciplinary Authority whereby pay of the Respondent was reduced from Rs. 3880/ - to Rs. 3540/ - in the pay scale of Rs. 3200 -4900/ - for a period of four years with cumulative effect; as also the order dated 18th May, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the Respondent.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the Respondent was working with the Petitioner as a Parcel Clerk at Delhi on 21.10.1998 when in a surprise check, a sum of Rs. 150/ - was found in his possession as excess as private cash and it was also revealed that he had created an artificial shortage of Rs. 145/ - in the Government cash. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the Respondent. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 24th May, 2000 thereby holding that charge No. 1 was proved fully; whereas charge No. 2 was proved partially since alterations were proved only on LT No. 199613. Enquiry report was served on the Respondent, who made a representation before the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, vide order dated 10th May, 2001 the Disciplinary Authority held Respondent guilty of charges levelled against him and imposed punishment of reduction of pay to Rs. 3200/ - from Rs. 3710/ - for a period of four years with cumulative effect in the grade of Rs. 3200 -4900/ -. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against this order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 5th July, 2001.

(3.) PURSUANT to above referred order the Enquiry Officer summoned and recorded the statement of defence witness Sh. A. Rehman and submitted enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer concluded that on the basis of evidence both oral and written that both the charges were proved. Copy of the enquiry report was given to the Respondent and he filed a detailed representation before the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27th October, 2004 held that the Respondent was guilty of charges levelled against him and imposed punishment of reduction of his pay to Rs. 3540/ - from Rs. 3880/ - for a period of four years with cumulative effect, in the grade of Rs. 3200 -4900/ -. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18th May, 2005.