UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Circuit at Nagpur, in O. A. No. 2233/02 directing the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the punishment awarded to the respondent.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. We have gone through the impugned order made by the Tribunal. We have also seen the record. Mr. Sambre has placed reliance on a decision in Poonam Chand v. Union of India & ors.,1996 34 ATC 30 and another decision of apex court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & ors., 2009 15 SCC 620 in support of the proposition that the doctrine of proportionality has been considered by the Tribunal in the instant case and the Tribunal has merely asked the employer, namely petitioners to impose any other punishment than one of removal. Mr. Sambre then argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal about Rule 17 of Rules 1968 is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law and, therefore, the said finding deserves to be modified. This order made by the Tribunal need not be re-examined by this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

(3.) We have gone through the impugned judgment and order recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Taking up the first issue as regards Rule 17, it would be relevant to quote below Rule 17 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.