AJEET KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order of the Tribunal dtd. 1/8/2019 passed in O.A. No. 17 of 2016 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'Tribunal').

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk on 23/7/2007. On 12/9/2011, Vigilance officials consisting of four Inspectors entered the premises where the petitioner was working and they have seized materials like tickets and transactional material including four requisitions. They found that there were shortage of Rs.632.00for which petitioner could not give proper explanation. Thus they have drawn proceedings called 'Joint Inspection Memo' which is a cyclostyle format. The aforesaid Memo has been signed by three persons including the petitioner. One of the column is relating to whether shortage/excess. The vigilance team have not identified whether Rs.632.00 is shortage or excess. Further, they have forwarded papers to Disciplinary Authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioner on the sole ground that there were shortage of Rs.632.00. The actual cash should have been a sum of Rs.9071.00, on the other hand he was in a possession of a sum of Rs.8439.00. On this point, Article of charges were framed vide Annexure 1 which reads as under:

(3.) The Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiring Officer to hold inquiry against the aforesaid charge. The Inquiring Officer has submitted report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the formalities of issuance of show cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report etc. The Disciplinary Authority with reference to inquiry records proceeded to impose the penalty of reduction of pay to lower stage for a period of three years with cumulative effect.