THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRANSPORT & OTHERS Vs. JAMEET SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory of Chandigarh has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "CAT") dated 24.8.2015 (Annexure P-3) rendered in O.A. No. 060/00127/2014, whereby applicant-respondent No.1 had sought quashing of the order dated 2.8.2013 (Annexure A-2), vide which he was ordered to be reverted to the post of Conductor from the post of Sub Inspector as per the recommendation of the Committee, on account of currency of the punishment.

(2.) Mr. Raghav Goel, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 17.7.2012, the applicant-respondent was designated as Sub Inspector by the office of the Director Transport, but at the time of his promotion as Sub Inspector, it came to the notice that the applicant-respondent was not entitled for such designation as vide Order No.2011 dated 15.7.2004, one increment was stopped with cumulative effect and its effect started from 1.6.2012, which remained effective upto 31.5.2013. The aforementioned fact surfaced only after the passing of the order dated 17.7.2012. In fact, as per order dated 23.5.2006, the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced to minimum of time scale for five years, which punishment he was already undergoing. It was further provided that he would not be entitled to earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and the effect of such punishment would be upto 31.5.2012. It was in such circumstances, since the applicant-respondent was already undergoing earlier punishments imposed by the petitioners, therefore, the punishment in terms of order dated 15.7.2004 actually started w.e.f. 1.6.2012 and remained effective upto 31.5.2013, as indicated above. The aforementioned facts were concealed on the part of the dealing Assistant in connivance with the applicant-respondent. The matter was immediately reviewed and put up before the competent authority. On consideration of the aforementioned facts, the applicant-respondent was rightly reverted to the post of Conductor.

(3.) It was further submitted that the CAT, despite noticing the aforementioned facts had erroneously held that due to non-production of the record, petition filed by the petitioner deserved to be accepted. It requires special notice that the conduct of the applicant-respondent from the very beginning of his joining the service was very casual as he remained absent from work on twenty seven occasions without assigning any reasons, details of which have been given in the written statement filed before CAT. The proper course for the CAT, in such circumstances was to remand the matter to the department, instead of setting-aside the order of reversion and, thus, urged this Court for quashing of the order under challenge.