MUNNA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petitions, we are concerned with a charge -sheet dated 1st February, 1993. In the charge -sheet, it was held out that delinquent Munna Lal was working as Store Lineman, Kashipur from 6th October, 1989 to 7th October, 1992. There is no dispute that a First Information Report was lodged by the Department, where it was stated that a theft took place in the Store in the evening of 30th August, 1992. In the First Information Report, Munna Lal was accused along with two others, of which one was named. In the charge -sheet, three charges were levelled against Munna Lal. Those are as follows:

(2.) CHARGE -sheet contained memorandum of charges and imputation of misconduct. In none of them, it was held out that Munna Lal was, as Store Lineman, responsible for stores. In the absence of an allegation to the effect that Munna Lal was responsible for the stores, the question of the petitioner being irresponsible for maintaining the stores with absolute integrity and being responsible for materials not found in the stores did never arise. In those circumstances, charges framed in Articles 1 and 2, under no circumstances, can be said to be proved. The Inquiry Officer, while submitting the inquiry report, did not hold out that he has found, as a fact, that Munna Lal was or made responsible for the store in question. In so far as the third charge is concerned, the finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal, not disputed by the delinquent in the writ petition filed by him, that he remained absent from duty from 2nd September, 1992 to 14th September, 1992, and that, he rejoined his duties on 15th September, 1992 without having obtained sanction to the medical leave applied and furnishing illness as well as fitness certificate on rejoining and there being no dispute that on 1st September, 1992 he was asked to hand over charge to one Shobha Ram, the third charge stands proved. Inasmuch as, the Disciplinary Authority passed the disciplinary order proceeding on the basis that all the three charges stand proved, we have no other option, but to set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority permitting the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order proceeding on the basis that only charge No. 3 stands proved. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is modified to the extent as above.