MANIK SAHADU BORSHE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is challenging the Order passed by the central Administrative Tribunal (For short "cat")whereby his application was dismissed and the order of termination was confirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as under :-

(3.) PETITIONER was working as Head Booking Clerk at titwala Railway Station, Central Railway. Between the period from 1/09/1989 to 10/09/1989* there was a short remittance of Rs 61,532/-, as a result of which petitioner was suspended on 14/09/1989. The Charge sheet was issued on 20/11/1989. The allegation in the charge Sheet against the petitioner was that he did not deposit the amount as required under the rules and, therefore, there was short remittance of the said amount. An inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer who examined 7 witnesses. Two statements of the Petitioner dated 11/09/1989 and 16/09/1989 which were recorded earlier were also brought on record. The Disciplinary authority accepted the report and held that the charges were proved and imposed penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The Appellate Authority before whom the appeal was preferred dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary authority. Petitioner preferred an Original application before the CAT, which also was rejected. The CAT relied upon two letters which were written by the petitioner in response to the memo received from the higher official. The CAT came to the conclusion that two letters clearly showed the admission of the petitioner that he was responsible and it was due to unavoidable circumstances there was a short remittance though he wanted to remit the amount as per the rules.