INDO GERMAN TOOL ROOM Vs. GUJARATI BISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and gone through the order dated 09.06.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing the Original Application No.2190/2013, filed by respondent no.1 - employee.

(2.) On Two grounds the Tribunal has allowed the application and directed denovo enquiry to be conducted against respondent no.1 - employee - (1) that there was a failure to provide defence representative / lawyer to represent the respondent no.1 in the departmental enquiry, which has vitiated the enquiry; and (2) that opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was not provided to the respondent - employee.

(3.) We have gone through the proceedings of the enquiry, which are reproduced in the order of the Tribunal. About 15 charges were leveled against respondent no.1 employee. In respect of certain charges, the respondent was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, and though he reserved the right to cross examine such witnesses on next occasion, at no point of time he availed such opportunity. In respect of certain charges, even the statement of witnesses were not recorded, but, merely say of the Presenting officer was recorded and at some places the Presenting Officer also sought time to cross examine the witnesses of the department itself. The matter is discussed in detail in the order of the Tribunal, and we need not repeat it. We therefore, find no fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in respect of failure of the department to provide opportunity to the respondent - employee to cross examine the witnesses.