UNION OF INDIA Vs. MADHUSUDAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned two writ applications arise out of singular proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench and have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by this common order. CWJC No. 5681 of 2004 preferred by the Union of India would assail the direction of the Tribunal to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner in CWJC No. 6334 of 2004. The latter would question the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner.

(2.) We have heard at length learned Senior Counsel Dr. Sadanand Jha appearing on behalf of the delinquent petitioner Shri Pathak, assisted by Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate and Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathy, the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

(3.) This Court would consider the facts of the case in so far as they be relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present controversy. The petitioner in CWJC No. 6334 of 2004 would question the orders of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 2.7.1997 at Annexure 12, the order of the Tribunal dated 5.2.2003 in T.A. No. 1 of 2000 at Annexure 20 affirming the same and the order dated 23.1.2004 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No. 11 of 2003 arising out of T.A. No. 1 of 2000 dismissing the review. CWJC No. 5681 of 2004 would question the order in M.A. No. 361 of 2003 passed in R.A. No. 11 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 6334 of 2004 directing the Union of India to reconsider the quantum of punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner, under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules).