UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAMNADAS D CHUDASMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Ms. Krishna Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr K K Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 17.6.2002 passed in O.A. No. 223 of 2001. The facts in brief are that the respondent/original petitioner was engaged as Helper on temporary basis. His services were regularized on 11.11.1980. His cadre of Battery Man was reclassified in pay scale of Rs.260-400 as TCM III. As he passed the Trade Test for the post of Batery Man, he was promoted to the post of Battery Man in pay scale of Rs.210-290. In 1986 the respondent was put in skilled grade of TCM III in pay scale of Rs.950-1500. On 31.12.1997, he cheated the Railway administration by fraudulently manipulating the entries in the office foil of issue vouchers and he was removed from the service. The respondent was faced with disciplinary proceedings for awarding of major penalty. The Inquiry Officer, in an oral inquiry, held the charges against the respondent as proved and punishment of removal from service was inflicted on the respondent by the disciplinary authority. The respondent challenged the said penalty order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") by filing O.A. No.734 of 1998 which was decided on 10.6.1999 with a direction to the petitioner that if the respondent prefers revision petition, it shall be decided by the petitioner expeditiously. The respondent filed revision petition on 2.7.1999 which was allowed by the revisional authority by order dated 6/7.4.2000 and the punishment of removal of service was modified by the following order:

(2.) WHILE we were dismissing the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the Tribunal has imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- on the official responsible in the matter. We are of the opinion that since the post of Batteryman had been abolished and the respondent was reverted to the post of Batteryman, there was a confusion as to what should be done in the matter which should be in accordance with law. Therefore, in our opinion, the official could not be held responsible for payment of cost which is to be recovered from him. Therefore, the cost imposed on the official responsible in the matter deserves to be set aside.