UNION OF INDIA Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant tribunal application is preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated May 06, 2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a proceeding filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

(2.) BY the said judgment and order dated May 06, 2011, passed by the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal, on careful consideration of the facts and the evidence on record found serious infirmities both procedural and even otherwise in the matter of conducting the departmental proceeding initiated against the charge-sheeted employee and on consideration of fact quashed the charge sheet, report of the Enquiry Officer, orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The said disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the basis of a charge sheet dated 8th August, 2005, along with imputation of misconduct. The charges are of negligence in discharging his official duty recording of false statement during the enquiry conducted by one N.B. Hansda and entry of a "fake person " in Railway service. The charge sheeted employee was initially suspended on 22nd March, 2005 and ultimately removed from service by an order dated 8th May, 2007 on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer which was subsequently affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Assailing the order of such authorities, the respondent employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of dismissal. The said Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, inter alia, on the following ground:

(3.) THE same is the case here. THE learned Tribunal had taken the pain of analyzing the Enquiry Report and the representations made by the employee before the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority. Both the authorities have proceeded with the matter without applying their mind and did not give any reason with regard to the various objections and points raised by the employee in such representation with regard to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. THE said authorities even failed to appreciate that the document on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer was not even shown to the delinquent employee and was not forming part of the list of documents.