REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 20. 11. 2001 made in O. A. No. 1368 of 2000, the Regional Provident Fund commissioner, Chennai - 14 and the Additional Central Provident Fund commissioner, Hyderabad have filed the above writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, while the second respondent was working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC), he was served with a charge memo, dated 20. 10. 1995 by the first petitioner under Rule 10 of Employees' Provident fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said charge memo contained five articles of charges. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that Article-III alone stood proved and the other charges were not established. The disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the view of the enquiry officer, after issuance of notice and calling for an explanation by order dated 3 1. 12. 1998, found that all the charges were proved, and imposed a punishment of reduction to the lower post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the pay scale of Rs. 3,050-4,590 for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the second respondent and the same was also rejected on 18. 08. 2000 by the second petitioner herein. Thereafter, the second respondent filed O. A. No. 1368 of 2000 before the Central Administrative tribunal, the first respondent herein, to quash the order of the second petitioner dated 18. 08. 2000. By the impugned order dated 20. 11. 2001, the tribunal, after finding that the punishment imposed on the applicant is excessive, modified it into one of reduction in his pay by two stages in the grade of UDC for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. Questioning the same, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Additional Central provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad, have filed the above writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioners.