DATTATRAY BAJRANG NAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties.

(2.) These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assail the validity of the judgment and order dtd. 11/4/2017 passed by the Mumbai Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Original Application No.548 of 2014, whereby the order of punishment of removal of the Petitioner of Writ Petition No.7038 of 2022 from service (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner), dtd. 11/9/2013 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dtd. 12/11/2013 rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of removal, have been quashed. By the impugned judgment the Petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service, however, it has further been held by the Tribunal that he shall not be entitled to any promotion on the basis of incorrect caste certificate submitted by him. The Tribunal has also held that the Petitioner shall not be entitled to wages from the date of his removal from service till the date he superannuated i.e. 30/11/2013. The Tribunal has also directed that the revised order placing the Petitioner to his original post of Inspector, Central Excise shall be passed negating the effect of all subsequent promotions granted to him after his initial appointment. The impugned judgment further holds that the Petitioner would be entitled to admissible pensionary benefits as a consequence of his reinstatement in service and superannuation in the post of Inspector, Central Excise.

(3.) The Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal to the extent the Tribunal has held that he shall not be entitled to promotion and that he shall not be entitled to wages from the date of his removal till the date of his superannuation. The Petitioner also takes exception to the impugned judgment of the Tribunal to the extent the Tribunal has directed that he shall be placed on his original post of Inspector, Central Excise and that all benefits and effect of subsequent promotions granted to him shall be negated. The Petitioner also challenges the directions issued by the Tribunal by passing the impugned judgment to the effect that he shall be entitled to pensionary benefits in the post of Inspector, Central Excise and not in the post of Superintendent, Grade-B on which post he had been working prior to passing of the order of punishment of removal from service.