K KAVIYARASU Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) made in O.A.No.826 of 2005 in rejecting the case of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Washer and Bearer in the Industrial Canteen run by the third respondent and he was working since 19.06.1998. On 24.10.2002 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings into serious charges to be framed against him. On 25.11.2002, he was served with a charge memo and the crux of the memo was that he was responsible for contaminating the canteen meals by putting naphthalene balls into sambar to be served during lunch.

(3.) MR. G. Nanmaran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel filed the entire inquiry proceedings in a typed set of papers and took this Court to the entire proceedings. We have also gone through the entire proceedings. We find that even before the preliminary enquiry, the said Saraswathi had pointed out the incident of contaminating the Sambar kept for serving during lunch. Even before the enquiry, when she was examined, she stuck to her version and pointed out the accusing finger against the petitioner. She told that even before the Board of enquiry she told the truth and before the enquiry officer she had categorically stated the time and duration during which the Naphthalene balls were put. There were other circumstantial evidence which were also let in, in the enquiry and this Court is not inclined to extract the entire adverse evidence against the petitioner in this order. It is suffice to say that the Court is convinced that this is not a case of no evidence. But, on the contrary this is a case of satisfactory evidence let in against the petitioner.