UNION OF INDIA Vs. MULABHAI N CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Union of India and Others have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 31 -01 -2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short, Tribunal), whereby the learned Tribunal partly accepted O.A. No. 608 of 1998 filed by the original applicant present respondent and quashed and set aside the impugned order of penalty of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 07 -07 -1993 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, and instead of the order of removal, the learned Tribunal passed the order of reduction to the lower time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with future effect. The learned Tribunal also awarded 50% back -wages to the applicant while ordering reinstatement in service with the aforesaid order of penalty of reduction in rank on the applicant's furnishing certificate of not being gainfully engaged during that period.

(2.) THE applicant was working as an Assistant Goods Clerk on daily ad hoc basis when he was served a charge -sheet on 09 -10 -1986. The charge against the applicant was that he loaded excess wagons and, thereby, exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to do duty. Surprisingly, during the pendency of the Departmental Inquiry initiated against him, he was made permanent in 1987. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 18 -12 -1992, came to the conclusion that part of the charge of transshipment of the fourth wagon against the special consignment was proved. However, rest of the charges against the applicant of having connivance was not found to be proved, as there was no evidence to that effect. The Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the Report of the Inquiry Officer, passed an order of removal from service on 27 -07 -1993, against which the applicant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. He had a further remedy of revision before the Revisional Authority. Instead, he preferred to file OA No. 580 of 1994 before the learned Tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh OA only after the Revision Petition filed before the Revisonal Authority was decided. Accordingly, the applicant had preferred Revision Application, which was dismissed by the Revisional Authority and, therefore, again he approached the learned Tribunal by way of another OA, which was rejected by the learned Tribunal on the ground of delay by its order dated 20 -01 -2004, against which the applicant filed writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4076 of 2004 before this Court, which was accepted on 28 -04 -2005 and the matter was remitted back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the said application after condoning the delay. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal by its impugned order dated 31 -01 -2006 (Annexure -A to the petition) partly allowed OA No. 608 of 1998 which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Cousel Ms. Avani Mehta for the petitioners vehemently submitted that though there was enough evidence against the applicant, the Inquiry Officer wrongly held that the charge of connivance against the applicant was not proved. She has tried to take us through the Report of the Inquiry Officer which is otherwise not permissible in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, with a view to do complete justice to the petitioners, we have gone through the Report of the Inquiry Officer and the evidence of the witnesses recorded during the inquiry.