ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) Vs. SATINDER KUMAR FOTEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in OA No. 463/JK/2004 dated 23.05.2008. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (Circuit Bench at Srinagar) has set aside the order of punishment imposed against the respondent with all consequential benefits and restoring his original position which the respondent was holding prior to issuance of the charge memo and has granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action against the respondent after following due process of law.. The respondent has accepted the judgment by not challenging the portion of granting liberty to the petitioner. The Accountant General of State of Jammu and Kashmir alone has chosen to challenge the order made in the OA.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that while working as Senior Accountant, he was attached in PRO Cell. In November 1999 a representative from Vigilance Organization met Sr. Accounts Officer, (Adm) and complained to him that letter dated 28.10.1999 relating to questions of some vouchers which was delivered by the Respondent personally while working as Accountant in the petitioners department and had not been passed on to concerned TM Section. Similarly, another complaint was made by one Khaliq Mir who had delivered in receipts section dated 24.08.1999 which was also not passed on to concerned section. After checking the record it was found that both the said letters had actually been received in receipt section on 1.11.1999 and 25.08.1999 respectively and were handed over to the respondent for further transmission to concerned section. Also the respondent also absented himself from duty w.e.f. 08.11.1999 and had also left station without permission of the Competent Authority. That during the preliminary enquiry made by Sr. Accounts Officer, a dust bin adjacent to the seat of the respondent full of letters torn up and destroyed by the respondent was found which included the above letters also. Consequently the competent authority placed the respondent under suspension vide order dated 19.11.1999 with directions not to enter office till further orders. The respondent disobeyed the said orders of the competent authority by entering the office on 26.11.1999. On 10.12.1999 a charge memo was issued containing three articles of charges. The articles of charges framed against the respondents are as follows: -

(3.) THE CAT has stated three reasons for setting aside the order. (1) The charges framed against the respondent are vague, without any material details; (2) The Disciplinary Authority has not discussed about the charges, the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer was proper or not and that he imposed the punishment without application of mind; and (3) the vagueness of the charges framed against the respondent has not been dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by Appellate Authority and, therefore, the order of punishment imposed is vitiated. The Tribunal after going through the entire material on record gave such a finding.