UNION OF INDIA Vs. S P PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, setting aside the punishment imposed on the 1st respondent on the ground of discrimination.

(2.) THE 1st respondent was working as an Executive Engineer, Construction Division-XII, CPWD., New Delhi at the relevant point of time. On 14.2.2001, a surprise inspection was conducted by the Vigilance Unit and a shortage of 101 cement bags were noticed at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day in the presence of the 1st respondent and others. After the Vigilance Unit left the place, it is alleged that the 1st respondent rectified the shortage by conniving with the contractor and a Charge Memo was issued on 5.12.2001.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. THE Enquiry Officer had not considered all the above aspects and come to a wrong conclusion with regard to Charge No.1 and as per the relevant rules, the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and it arrived at his own finding. THE learned Counsel submitted that the fact the Junior Engineer was imposed with a lesser punishment is no ground to set aside the punishment. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent, who was found guilty by both the charges was allowed to go free. THE learned Counsel submitted that when the responsibility of the 1st respondent is higher, it is only justified that he is imposed with higher punishment.