S C CHANDWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A few facts may be noted: The petitioner was working as Appraiser at Bombay customs. petitioner was servo with a charge-:sheet in the year 1974 pursuant to which an enquiry was held and punishment was imposed by way of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay by order dated 3rd november 1977. The petitioner preferred an appeal.

(2.) IT is the. ,case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, the period of punishment expired in the year 1979. On 9. 2. 1984, the President of India issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why punishment earlier imposed should not- be enhanced. The petitioner showed cause. However, inspite of showing cause, the Hon'ble President was pleased to enhance the punishment from reduction of two stages in pay scale, to remove by way of compulsory retirement by order dated 12th February 1985.

(3.) THE petitioner aggrieved, preferred a Writ petition before this Court. On the Central administrative Tribunal being constituted the petition was transferred and numbered as Transfer Application no. 245 of 1986. By order of 8. 12. 1992, the Tribunal held that in imposing the punishment, the view of the u. P. S. C. had' not been taken prior to the imposition of punishment and consequentially violated the procedure in imposing punishment and consequently set aside the order. It was also observed that it goes without saying that the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits which may be permissible under the law. The learned Tribunal also held that considering the passage of time, ends of justice would be met if the respondents were ' directed not to initiate further proceedings against the petitioner by the President and that the appeal preferred by the petitioner should be dismissed. It may be pointed out that along with the petitioner one Shri Tukaram G. Harale had also been charge-sheeted for the same misconduct like the petitioner and similar punishment was also imposed. The Tribunal by the very same order allowed his application also. It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondents failed to comply with the order of the tribunal he was compelled to take out Contempt petition. In the mean time, the respondents also had preferred S. L. P. before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 14. 11. 1994. The Contempt Petition taken out by the petitioner was disposed of earlier on 10th september 1993 directing the respondents to comply with the order of the Tribunal within four weeks unless the stay was granted by the Apex Court. As inspite of the dismissal of the S. L. P, the petitioner had not been re-instated nor consequential benefits paid, the petitioner took out fresh Contempt Petition no. 173/93 which was disposed of by order dated 20. 1. 1995 with direction as contained therein. It is the case of the petitioner that: between 19. 2. 1995 and 19. 6. 1995, a sum of Rs. 4. 30,688/- was paid to him. The petitioner further contends that the amount paid to him had not been properly calculated nor his pay properly fixed. He was in correspondence with the respondents demanding balance payment after proper fixation of his pay as well as fixation of pension as in the mean time, he was super annulled on 31. 12. 1993.