§
33
A Rules: As the order ef termination of the peti_ti__Qr1er
from service has been gassed by the
Authority, ihe order does not call for any
They ales contended that the
conducted by the Enquiry
the procedure laid down anciijihe been
afforded reasonable e’ppQrt§1’fiityV—I’§:; ‘defend–Vfiiffiself and
there are me latches in in the
enquiry by as the Enquiry
wOffic:er ha駒.he.£;§i’viihele-he.rge levelled against
him of} tIieT”‘vt§e,_siAs’;V’3:ef evideefice and the documents
placed erg nothing on record is find
fault’ with Lhe”‘eaieE erder, basing on which the
.’ V. viz. the Chief Engineer/C0~
Bangalore Cantonment has
‘ _ paeseei order ef the peiitioner which has
t;.;§’}:e1d by the Dieeiplinary authority as per the D
‘fiulee viz. {he Chief Engineer and hence the same
fleee not suffer frem any infirmity eafiing fer
interferenee.
(\§%%§;/’/
§
§
4. The tribunal on Considering the
placed before it and on hearing the
respective parties’ rejected the
revision preferred by the petttiorter its
1e.e.2010 and 279.2010. It’i§”-t.he eé1id.vo’rdz3te1.:Ettié1tVhas V
been aseafled by the pEfiU01″t€f– petitiet1…..Vv’:
5. ; l§g1r1;§’e’t–. have not
been ;’;’1iiK;’g3;3z » :C’emi)etent Authority as
eontertiplatedtvttitrittet rules, the entire enquiry
proeeedzirtgs_ie.,Vitieted”. report cf the Enquiry officer
‘_ reveetlsi ttzet t}1e”‘:eamev is not based on the evidence and
{i’oet;t1;ef1t;s placed on recerd and as there is lapse in
it eannet be the base for
terrfi-inatiei:-“‘V of the petitioner of his services from
h He further contended vehemently that as the
.’ iilfipugned erdere of termination ef the petitiener of his
T’ “Services from Reiiways ie met passed by the Cempetent
Authertt}; as eentemplated mzder the ‘£1*&A Rmeeg the
same is eitieteé aefi the ‘E’ribur:a§ without appreeiating
$3″E?5?: ‘ £ Z%’ e-%777)///////////mom~.»……..~.. .-,
. …H§$S\\\\\\\\\§ &\\\\\ W
. …+.$\\\\\\\\«««\\ .%
g
§
2
, .,,.W,,.V.W»~»WH.wm mW
‘9
peiitiener from Railways passed by the respva:::J._e13_:s
calls for any interference?’
8, It is the contention of .:he»..pet§’_fief;’e’1;VI, V
report of the enquiry officer is
and the documents pIace’d*–.__ie’1@_> ree’ot_d .’—.VA “ie, no ‘V
material placed before .§he er£qVefi:f’}}VVv”effice1;A{<3-.§1?£ew that
he had actually covered
under the Kfirinivaeuiu
Reddy. "me s0le}y relied upcm the
technical grounds.
The been examined to preve
the alleged z’ehe1rg-:v$. the other hand, it is the ease
Raiiways ‘fiA”iVéi’t”é1V:he cheque drawn in the name of
Reddy, an ernpleyee ef the Railways,
_ haei~f3ee_:1’ei_e;fie1estinei}r removed by the petitiener when
gigs.’ 1′”-eéurned from the Bank of India; Yeehwanthpur
and thereafteiz the proeeeés of the same has
-beien misappropriated by the peiiiiener by makmg use
ef ene Jjviaéhu Bheekery 3. esyempieyee ef the
petétiener. The materiai 0:: record reveal the petiiiener
M”
EEégffci/ %% /I//////////r/;;nw
14
interregnurn the petitioner instead of preferring the
revision had Challenged the said order in
8749/2003 before this Court which
dismissed on 31.3.2003 upholdingf it
Tribunal. After the matter wasbA:’.re:ihitteci1h”has}:1
appropriate Disciplinary V Chief
Engineer / constructiori/. ‘Ch’ariton’rn’e11t:.v the said
Authority on going passed
the order of xlfrom service by
his speaking”:o*rtierV’–~–. and directed the
applicgintfliy to the Appellate
Authority” administrative Officer,
construction!Bangalore”Cantonment under the D & A
iéxeoordingliyiiiithe petitioner submitted the appeal
riot lfirofngalore Cantonment on 35.2004 against
the”-.penaityC~’of dismissal from service imposed by the
Vhdiseipliriahry authority. In the meantime, the CA0,
i._’t3Vonst’ruetion, Bangalore Cantonment, retired from
-»serViee on 30.4.2084 and therefore? the Chief
Engineer / Co~or<iination / Construction, Bangalore
Cantonment was posted as independent eharge oi" the
fl
5;'?
‘”