UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. N. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 23-8-2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal allowing Original Application No. 284 of 1994 filed by Ram Prakash Dixit, respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, setting aside his removal order dated 17-12-1992 and appellate order dated 25-11- 1993.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by setting aside punishment and appellate orders, though charges proved against the respondent No. 2 were of serious nature. He further contended that in respect to charge No. 1, earlier he was issued warning for non-performing mobile service in time between 25-5-1981 to 20-8-1982, but the warning by itself was not a punishment, and therefore, it could not have been said that he was being punished twice on charge No. 1. Similarly, in respect to charge No. 2, he contended that petitioner did not apply for leave to the competent authority, namely, Superintendent, Post Offices and therefore, charge of unauthorized absence was proved but the learned Tribunal erred in law by holding otherwise. In respect to charges No. 3 and 4, both were found proved but the Tribunal has held that those charges did not constitute any misconduct.