RANG NATH MISRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s. 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs: -

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has pointed out that the enquiry officer has not considered the reply of the applicant submitted against the charge sheet and has also not considered the statement of Shanti Devi @ Revti as well as her daughter. Apart from this, the applicant has categorically pointed out in his reply submitted to the charge sheet that Shanti Devi and Revti Devi both are one lady and wife of the applicant and they are having five children, out of which, three are daughters and two are sons. In the O.A., the learned Counsel for the applicant has categorically pointed out that this aspect was not considered by the enquiry officer and he has submitted his report, as such it requires interference and is liable to be struck down.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant filed rejoinder and through rejoinder reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and the averments made in counter are denied. Through rejoinder reply, it is once again pointed out by the applicant that he has given the name of his wife as Shanti Devi and has also given the name of all five children, as such there is no concealment before the department. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the averments made in the reply filed against the charge sheet or the reply filed against the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority failed to take note of the same and passed the orders in a very mechanical manner.