UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Though the case has been called out in the revised list, but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 8th March, 2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application NO. 245 of 2004, filed by the respondent no.1-Rajesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application, setting aside the order of termination, and directed the petitioners to take back the respondent in service with the further direction that the respondent would be entitled for the pay and allowance for the period during which he remained out of service, with the increments due and his seniority will also remain intact.

(3.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondent, while he was posted as Postman, at Mahmoorganj, Varanasi, has been charged that he paid the money against four money orders to one Dhirendra Singh, without verifying his identity. An enquiry has been initiated against the respondent and a chargehseet has been served upon him. In the enquiry proceedings, the charges levelled against the respondent were found proved and an enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary authority, who has passed the order of punishment of removal of respondent from service on 25th December, 1993. The appeal filed against the said order by the respondent has also been dismissed vide order dated 20th June, 1994. The respondent challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, by means of Original Application No. 1867 of 1994. Said Original Application was partly allowed vide order dated 26th April 2002 and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary authority with the direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners by way of Writ Petition No. 29468 of 2002 before this Court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 5th August, 2002. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the Disciplinary authority passed order dated 26th September, 2003, holding the respondent guilty of embezzlement of public fund and upheld the charge of mis-conduct. The Disciplinary authority, again passed the order of removal of the respondent from service. Against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed Original Application No. 245 of 2004. The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the Original Application.