UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATYA NANDAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the Union of India (Department of Communication and IT) - non applicant of OA No. 232 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.05.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter called The Tribunal) in aforementioned original application. By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the applicant (respondent herein) and quashed the penalty of withholding of one increment of the respondent for a period of one year without cumulative effect which was imposed on him by the appointing authority for committing one misconduct.

(2.) Facts of the case are short and simple. They, however, need mention in brief below.

(3.) The question then arose as to whether an amount of Rs. 32,467/- claimed by the respondent in his TA bill was justified or not and whether it was permissible as per Rules. The department claimed that it was not justified because it was not as per Rules. Accordingly, the department issued a memorandum dated 17.02.2010 under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 containing a statement of imputations of misconduct and calling upon the respondent to submit his representation within 10 days. The basic allegation is that the respondent had claimed Rs. 13,198/- over and above his normal and actual entitlement on account of transportation of personal effects. The respondent submitted representation on 25.02.2010 against the said memorandum dated 17.02.2010 contesting the charges. It also appears from the said representation dated 25.02.2010 that on receipt of the memorandum dated 17.2.2010, the respondent had deposited the sum of Rs. 13,198/-. The department was, however, not satisfied with the reply and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge framed against the respondent and on that basis, the appointing authority, concurring with the finding of Inquiry Officer, imposed a penalty of withholding of one yearly increment without cumulative effect on the respondent. It is against this imposition of penalty order, the respondent felt aggrieved and filed the original application out of which this writ petition arises before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by impugned order allowed the original application and quashed the penalty order. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the Department (employer) felt aggrieved and filed this writ petition.