UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order of the Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.522 of 2007 whereby the orders made by the third petitioner herein and thereupon affirmed by the second petitioner herein were set aside.

(2.) THE writ petition came to be filed under the following circumstances. During the year 1996, when the second respondent was working as a Stores Lineman, he was served with a memo on 29.2.1996 by the Sub Divisional officer, Telecom, calling for explanation as to certain shortage of store items. A reply was given by the second respondent stating that he was not responsible for such lapses, but he was kept under suspension with effect from 3.6.1996. Following the same, a charge memo was served on him to which, he tendered his explanation. Since, it was found to be not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry on the charges. THE Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that all the three charges leveled against the second respondent herein stood proved. A copy of the enquiry report was also served upon him calling for the representation and the second respondent herein has putforth his representation. Not satisfied with the same, an order of punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect, dated 23.4.2002, came to be passed by the second respondent and the same was served upon the second respondent herein. An appeal preferred by the second respondent herein was dismissed upholding the punishment. THEreafter, the second respondent herein preferred a revision before the first petitioner herein who modified the penalty of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement. Under such circumstances, the second respondent herein filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has set aside the orders and also observed that if considered necessary, a fresh enquiry could be conducted on the charges levelled against applicant/second respondent herein. Under such circumstances, aggrieved Department has brought forth this writ petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the writ petition requires an admission.