GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. B MOSSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2. 9. 2008 passed in O. A. NO. 285 of 2006 on the file of the cnetral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by virtue of which, the Tribunal allowed the O. A.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the order dated 6. 7. 2005 passed by the Reviewing Authority, by virtue of which Reviewing Authority modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority from reduction of pay to Rs. 8,300/-from basic pay of Rs. 8,650/- in scale of rs. 5,500-9,000 to 'reduction of pay to rs. 8,475/- from basic pay of Rs. 8,650/- in the same scale till the date of retirement of the employee i. e. 31. 8. 2005 with cumulative effect for retirement benefits'.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent was working as P. W. I/grade-Ill/c/sc in construction wing and he was transferred by an order dated 27. 10. 1992. He handed over the charge of the jurisdiction to his successor Sri K. R. Venkoba Rao, pwi/c/snf. As the material was held at various stores depots within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad SNF, it could not be handed over immediately. Subsequently three thefts of material have taken place stored in various places on different dates viz. , 14. 10. 1993, 21. 2. 1994 and 19. 3. 1994. It is stated that it is only after ten years after the transfer of the applicant-respondent a charge memo under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Danda)Rules, 1968 was issued in standard Form no. V by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-l)S. C. Railway, Secunderabad in his order dated 22. 6. 2004. The applicant-respondent submitted his explanation to the charge memo denying the charges. Subsequently, inquiry Officer was appointed and he enquired into the matter and submitted his report. The Inquiry Officer found that the first charge is partly proved and the second charge is not proved. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 22. 3. 2005 submitted copy of the enquiry report and directed the applicant to submit his explanation to the enquiry report. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his explanation on 4. 4. 2005 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide memo dated 2. 5. 2005 awarded the punishment of reduction of pay to Rs. 8,300/-from basic pay Rs. 8,650/- in time scale of rs. 5,500/-9000/- with immediate effect till his retirement i. e. , 31. 8. 2005 with cumulative effect for retirement benefits. On appeal, the reviewing Authority vide order dated 6. 7. 2005 modified the order of the disciplinary authority as under: