UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1, who was working as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices at the relevant time, was issued charge-sheet dated 29.11.2000 charging him for having wrongly appointed three persons. The inquiry officer held the charges to have been proved and the disciplinary authority awarded him punishment of compulsory retirement which was upheld in appeal and revision. He thereafter moved the Central Administrative Tribunal which set aside the order of compulsory retirement holding this to be disproportionate the charges and remanded the matter back to the competent authority for a fresh decision. Aggrieved therefrom the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. Union of India has argued that as regards first charge, the respondent No. 1 had appointed one Sukhdev Singh as EDDA Dorangla who had lesser marks in Matriculation. In this connection the relevant rule is as follows:--

(2.) The Tribunal held that the essential qualification was 8th standard pass and since both the candidates were Matriculates, only the marks obtained in the 8th standard would be relevant. We find no error in this approach.

(3.) As regards second charge, it was alleged that respondent No. 1 while appointing one Sh. Harish Chander had not made a panel of at least three eligible candidates in contravention of instructions. The Tribunal found that this appointment was made against a post reserved for OBC and held that the omission to make select list of three candidates was not so serious since the appointed person was otherwise eligible and belonged to the relevant reserved category.