SURINDER SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd October, 2003 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (in short, the Tribunal') whereby his Original Application against the recovery order of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, has been dismissed. The facts are not in dispute The petitioner was a Driver in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking He caused an accident for which FIR under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered as it was a case of injury The injured filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the petitioner was required to depose as a departmental witness The petitioner deliberately did not appear as a witness despite orders passed by the higher authorities resulting into award of Rs. 1,60,000/ - as compensation to the injured -claimant Petitioner was charge sheeted and a regular inquiry was ordered The Inquiry Officer though did not hold the petitioner guilty but disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner did not appear despite written orders issued by the competent authority which were duty noted by him Consequently, the punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in 48 installments, besides warning and payment of only the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, were imposed The petitioner preferred departmental appeal etc but the said punishment was maintained.

(2.) STILL aggrieved, the petitioner went to Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (Tribunal) who rejected his challenge, giving rise to this writ petition.

(3.) IT is vehemently urged that once the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, the findings ought not to have been lightly brushed aside by the disciplinary authority It is also contended that the petitioner, who has since retired from service, has been subjected to a very harsh punishment disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against him