UNION OF INDIA Vs. C M AMRUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions challenge the order passed by the Central administrative Tribunal on 3rd April 2003 allowing the original applications made by the respondent in the present petition before the tribunal and the original applicants before the Tribunal are employees of Government of India in the department of Central Excise and at the relevant time were working in the commissionrate of Excise at Pune. Departmental proceedings were started against each of them for misconducts mentioned in the charge sheets duly served and after the charges were held proved, various punishments were awarded. Correctness of those punishments were the subject matter of all the applications before the Tribunal. Since the incident out of which the entire proceedings of each applicant arose were the same and the arguments advanced before the Tribunal were the same, the Tribunal by the order dated 3rd April 2003 proceeded to allow the original applications, observing that the Union of India could not have been penalised any of them as there was no evidence whatever on record to prove any involvement of any of these persons in those misconducts.

(2.) The Union of India has come up with these writ petitions and since all these petitions arose idential question of law, all the petitions were taken together and by consent of all concerned, they being disposed of by this common order. The punishments which was imposed by the department of Customs after finding that the charges were proved by the Disciplinary Authority which are as under:

(3.) The Tribunal as we have mentioned above, allowed all the original applications and set aside the punishment imposed to each of them as disclossed by the chart above. The learned counsel for the Union of india relying on several judgment of the Supreme Court of India has contended that the Tribunal as also this Court has no jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority on appreciation of the evidence on record while coming to the conclusion that the delinquents were guilty of the charges levelled against them.