{"id":136838,"date":"2005-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2"},"modified":"2017-06-01T07:01:00","modified_gmt":"2017-06-01T01:31:00","slug":"union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR           \n                   (Division Bench)\n\n      WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2000  \n\n      Union of India & Others\n                                        ...Petitioner\n                        Versus\n      The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur & Another\n                                        ...Respondent\n\n!      Present   :    Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok\n       Swarnkar, learned counsel for the   petitioner.\n\n^      Mr. U.N.S. Deo, with Mr. Pankaj  Shrivatava, learned counsel for\n       respondent No.2.\n\n      CORAM :         Hon'ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ\n                       &  Hon'ble Shri S.K.Agnihotri, J.\n\n      Dated: 16\/06\/2005\n\n:      O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       ( 16th of June 2005)<\/p>\n
                The  following Order of the  Court  was
\npassed by
\nA.K. Patnaik, CJ:\n<\/p>\n
      In  this writ petition under Articles 226\/227  of<\/p>\n
the   Constitution  of  India,  the  petitioners   have<\/p>\n
challenged  the order dated 22.09.1999  passed  by  the<\/p>\n
Central   Administrative  Tribunal,   Jabalpur   Bench,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur in Original Application No.456 of 1991.<\/p>\n
2.   The facts briefly are that the respondent No.2 was<\/p>\n
working  as a Permanent Way Inspector under  the  South <\/p>\n
Eastern Railways.  A departmental enquiry was initiated<\/p>\n
against  the respondent No.2.  In the said departmental<\/p>\n
enquiry  two  articles of charge  were  framed  against<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2.  The two articles of  charge  are  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “Article-I:  That  the  said  Sri  B.P.Singh
\n     while functioning as PWI\/MBY during 1986 had
\n     accepted   989  pcs.  Of  B.G.  Sal   wooden
\n     sleepers  \/  special from the associates  of
\n     M\/s.  M.P.  M.P. Export Corp.  Ltd.  without
\n     Booking Instructions of Dy.CE\/SLC\/GRC or any
\n     instruction from his superior officers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           By  the above act Sri Singh failed  to
\n     main  absolute integrity, devotion  to  duty
\n     and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of
\n     a  Rly.  servant and there by violated  rule
\n     3(i), (ii) & (iii) of the RSC Rules, 1966.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Article-II: That during the aforesaid period
\n     and   while  functioning  in  the  aforesaid
\n     office,  the said Sri B.P. Singh has granted
\n     12\/EG-15  (Acknowledgment) for the aforesaid
\n     989  Pcs.  Of  B.G.  Sal wooden  sleepers  \/
\n     specials  quoting  6  BIs  meant  for  other
\n     consignees  and  one  for  PWI\/BMY.  On  the
\n     strength  of those 13 EG-15, the  Contractor
\n     has  claimed bill of Rs.10,09,305.20P to Dy.
\n     CE\/SLC\/GRC.  He granted 13 Nos. clear  EG-15
\n     for  989 pcs. Of sleepers \/ specials quoting
\n     6 fake B.I. Nos. meant for some other units.<\/span>
\n     The  B.I.  No.303 was meant for PWI\/BMY  and
\n     the sleepers were passed at Depot No.371  of
\n     Pendra  Road,  but  Sri  Sngh  received  the
\n     materials  from other depots of  Dhamtari  &
\n     Raipur.  Thus, Sri Singh has failed to  main
\n     absolute  integrity, devotion  to  duty  and
\n     acted in a manner which is unbecoming  of  a
\n     Rly.   Servant   as  required   under   rule
\n     3(I)(i),(ii)  &  (iii)  of  the  RSC  Rules,
\n     1966.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer given a finding in<\/p>\n
the enquiry report that the two articles of charge were<\/p>\n
proved against respondent No.2.  The enquiry report was<\/p>\n
accepted   by  the  Disciplinary  Authority   and   the<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2  was removed from service  vide  order<\/p>\n
dated 25.10.1989 by the disciplinary authority with the<\/p>\n
observation that he was a person of doubtful  integrity<\/p>\n
and  was  not  a fit person to be retained in  service.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved  by the said order of removal, the respondent<\/p>\n
No.2   preferred   an  appeal  before   the   appellate<\/p>\n
authority.    But  before  the  appeal   was   decided,<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2 filed Original Application  No.456  of<\/p>\n
1999   before  the  Central  Administrative   Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur.   The Tribunal after  hearing<\/p>\n
the  parties  disposed of the Original  Application  by<\/p>\n
modifying  the  order  of  removal  to  an   order   of<\/p>\n
compulsory  retirement with effect from the  date  from<\/p>\n
which  the  respondent No.2 was removed  from  service.<\/p>\n
Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the order dated 22.09.1999  of  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal  in the said O.A.No.456 of 1991 which  contain<\/p>\n
the reason for modifying the order of removal to one of<\/p>\n
the compulsory retirement are quoted herein below:<\/p>\n
     “5.   We have duly considered the submission
\n     of   both  sides  and  minutely  peruse  the
\n     records.  It is true that the applicant  was
\n     posted   as   Permanent  Way  Inspector   in
\n     Bhilliai  Marshalling Yard where he  had  to
\n     see  to  the maintenance of Railway  tracks.
\n     The  applicant  was  required  materials   \/
\n     stocks   which   were  necessary   for   the
\n     maintenance.    The  said   materials   were
\n     supplied to the Railways by the M.P.  Export
\n     Corporation Limited, Bhopal.  It is  alleged
\n     that   during   the  period   1986-87,   the
\n     applicant  had received materials  \/  stock,
\n     which  on check was found to be short.   The
\n     respondents in their reply themselves  admit
\n     that the responsibility was not that of  the
\n     applicant who was the P.W.I. but the  Senior
\n     D.E.N,  D.E.N. and the A.E.N.  were  equally
\n     responsible  and  they  were  aware  of  the
\n     problems  of  the Bhillai Marshalling  Yard.
\n     If  it be so, the materials supplied to  the
\n     Railways ought to have been checked  by  the
\n     superior  officers  \/  authorities  as  well
\n     because  the  bills  are  to  be  ultimately
\n     passed   through  them.     No   doubt   the
\n     misappropriation  of  materials  might  have
\n     been due to lack of devotion of duty on  the
\n     part  of  the applicant as alleged, however,
\n     the  fact  remains that there was negligence
\n     on  the  part of the superior officers  like
\n     the  Sr.  DEN and AEN who were not taken  to
\n     task by the respondent – department for  the
\n     reasons  best  known  to  them.   Only   the
\n     applicant   was   circled   out   and   held
\n     responsible for the government loss.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.    In  view  of  what has been  discussed
\n     above and after hearing the counsel for both
\n     parties  and having perused the  records  on
\n     file, we find that the applicant was not the
\n     sole  person whose negligence attributed  to
\n     the  acceptance of sub standard material but
\n     some  senior  officers were also responsible
\n     and  they  were spared for the reasons  best
\n     known to the official respondents.  We  also
\n     find  that  for  shortage of  251  sleepers,
\n     utilized in track repairs, four junior  PWIs
\n     who  were also responsible for accounting  &
\n     transaction   were  also   spared   by   the
\n     official.    In   the   circumstances,   the
\n     punishment  imposed upon  the  applicant  is
\n     considered  too  harsh and  we  are  of  the
\n     opinion  that  the same should be  modified.
\n     In  this  connection we  also  rely  on  the
\n     decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
\n     case  of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,<\/a>
\n     (1995) 6 SCC 749.  We accordingly dispose of
\n     this  application  and modify  the  impugned
\n     punishment of removal from service  to  that
\n     of  compulsory  retirement w.e.f.  the  date
\n     from which he was removed from service.  The
\n     respondents   shall   take   all   necessary
\n     measures  as  required under the  Rules  for
\n     making payment of pensionary benefits to the
\n     applicant  to which he will be  entitled  to
\n     within six months from today.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.    Mr.  Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate appearing for  the<\/p>\n
petitioners submitted that the two charges against  the<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2 were serious in nature  and  had  been<\/p>\n
proved  in  the  departmental enquiry.   He  vehemently<\/p>\n
argued  that  since  it  has been  established  in  the<\/p>\n
departmental  enquiry  that  the  respondent  No.2  had<\/p>\n
failed  to maintain absolute integrity in the discharge<\/p>\n
of  his duty and has also misappropriate 251 numbers of<\/p>\n
New  Wooden  Crossings Sleepers  and  thereby  put  the <\/p>\n
Railway  in heavy financial loss, the order of  removal<\/p>\n
passed  by the disciplinary authority was proportionate<\/p>\n
to  the gravity of misconduct and should not have  been<\/p>\n
interfered with by the Tribunal in the impugned  order.<\/p>\n
He  submitted that the Supreme Court has held  in  B.C.<\/p>\n
Chaturvedi  vs.  Union of India &  Others<\/a>  reported  in<\/p>\n
(1995)  6 SCC 749 that is only when the Tribunal  finds<\/p>\n
that   the   punishment  imposed  by  the  disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority  is  shocking,  it will  interfere  with  the<\/p>\n
punishment   and   remit  the  matter   back   to   the<\/p>\n
disciplinary  authority or the appellate  authority  to<\/p>\n
reconsider  the  punishment  to  be  imposed   on   the<\/p>\n
delinquent  and  only  in exceptional  rare  cases  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal can impose lesser punishment.  He also  relied<\/p>\n
on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India<\/p>\n
&  Another  vs. G. Ganayutham<\/a> reported in AIR  1997  SC <\/p>\n
3387  as  well as Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy<\/a> reported<\/p>\n
in  2005  AIR  SCW  2005 for the proposition  that  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal   will  not  interfere  with  the   order   of<\/p>\n
punishment  unless  the same is  wholly  irrational  or<\/p>\n
illegal.   He further submitted that in this case,  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal  while  reducing the punishment  from  one  of<\/p>\n
removal  to  compulsory retirement  has  recorded  some<\/p>\n
findings  of negligence against some superior  officers<\/p>\n
namely  Sr.  D.E.N.,  D.E.N.  and  A.E.N.,  and   these<\/p>\n
findings  are not based on any material in the  records<\/p>\n
of the departmental enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Mr.  U.N.S.  Deo, learned counsel  appearing  for<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that  the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal inter<\/p>\n
alia  was  that  the  respondent  No.2  was  posted  as<\/p>\n
Permanent  Way  Inspector in Bhillai  Marshalling  Yard<\/p>\n
where  he was to see the maintenance of railway tracks.<\/p>\n
But  he was not the sole person who was responsible for<\/p>\n
the  loss of materials \/ stocks in the railway yard and<\/p>\n
the   Sr.   D.E.N.,  D.E.N.  and  A.E.N.  were  equally<\/p>\n
responsible and yet respondent No.2 was singled out for<\/p>\n
the  differential treatment and proceeded  against  the<\/p>\n
departmental  enquiry  and  finally  removed  from  the<\/p>\n
service.   He  further submitted that the Tribunal  was<\/p>\n
therefore  right in coming to the conclusion  that  the<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 was not the sole person responsible for<\/p>\n
accepting substandard materials or for the shortage  of<\/p>\n
251 sleepers and in reducing the punishment from one of<\/p>\n
removal  from service to one of compulsory  retirement.<\/p>\n
He  also  relied on the aforesaid decision  of  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  in  B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) wherein it has  been<\/p>\n
held that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority  shocks  the  judicial  conscience   of   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, the Tribunal can interfere with the same  and<\/p>\n
in some cases can also reduce the punishment to shorten <\/p>\n
the  litigation.  He also relied on the decision of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer<\/p>\n
(R.K.  Rai), Allahabad Bank & Others<\/a> reported in (2003)<\/p>\n
9  SCC  480 wherein it has been held that the  relevant<\/p>\n
factors  are  not  taken note of while determining  the<\/p>\n
quantum   of   punishment,   the   Court   can   direct<\/p>\n
reconsideration or in an appropriate case  for  shorten<\/p>\n
the  litigation indicate the punishment to be  awarded.<\/p>\n
He  also cited the decision of Supreme Court in  Pritam<\/p>\n
Singh vs. Union of India & Others<\/a> reported in 2004  AIR<\/p>\n
SCW 5391, wherein the Supreme Court interfered with the <\/p>\n
order  of  punishment of compulsory retirement  as  the<\/p>\n
railway  employee had put in 31 years of  long  service<\/p>\n
without  any blemish.  He submitted that in the present<\/p>\n
case,  the  respondent No.2 had  put  in  29  years  of<\/p>\n
unblemished service and he should not have been removed <\/p>\n
from  service and therefore, the order of the  Tribunal<\/p>\n
reducing the punishment of removal to one of compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement  was justified.  Finally, he submitted  that<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 had raised various<\/p>\n
other  grounds  such  as; violation  of  principles  of<\/p>\n
natural justice; and procedural irregularities  in  the<\/p>\n
enquiry, but all these grounds have not been taken note<\/p>\n
of  by  the Tribunal in the impugned order.  To a query<\/p>\n
made by the Court as to why the respondent No.2 has not <\/p>\n
challenged the order of the Tribunal, Mr. Deo,  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  appearing for respondent No.2  submitted  that<\/p>\n
since  the  Tribunal by the impugned order reduced  the<\/p>\n
punishment  from  one of removal to one  of  compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement  and the respondent No.2 on such  compulsory <\/p>\n
retirement  would  be  entitled  to  his  pension,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2  did not challenge the  order  of  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    The  law in what cases, the Tribunal or the  High<\/p>\n
Court  can  interfere  with the quantum  of  punishment<\/p>\n
imposed  on a delinquent by the disciplinary  authority<\/p>\n
is now fairly well settled in India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    In B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) the Supreme Court  has<\/p>\n
been  held  that  the  disciplinary  authority  or  the<\/p>\n
appellate   authority,   being   the   facts    finding<\/p>\n
authorities  have  exclusive  power  to  consider   the<\/p>\n
evidence  with a view to maintain discipline  and  they<\/p>\n
are  invested with the discretion to impose appropriate<\/p>\n
punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity  of<\/p>\n
the  misconduct.   In  the said decision,  the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  has however held that the High Court \/ Tribunal,<\/p>\n
while  exercising the power of judicial review,  cannot<\/p>\n
normally substitute their own conclusion on penalty and<\/p>\n
impose  some  other  penalty.  But  if  the  punishment<\/p>\n
imposed  by the disciplinary authority or the appellate<\/p>\n
authority  shocks  to conscience of the  High  Court  \/<\/p>\n
Tribunal,  it  would appropriately  mould  the  relief,<\/p>\n
either directing the disciplinary \/ appellate authority<\/p>\n
to  reconsider the penalty imposed, or to  shorten  the<\/p>\n
litigation,  it  may  itself, in exceptional  and  rare<\/p>\n
cases,   impose  appropriate  punishment  with   cogent<\/p>\n
reasons in support thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    In  Union  of India & Another vs.  G.  Ganayutham<\/a><\/p>\n
(supra)  the  Supreme  Court considered  the  law  with<\/p>\n
regard  to  proportionality of punishment both  in  the<\/p>\n
U.S.  and  in  England as well as in India and  finally<\/p>\n
came to conclusion that the position in our country  in<\/p>\n
Administrative Law is that the Courts \/ Tribunals  will<\/p>\n
only  play a secondary role while the primary  judgment<\/p>\n
as  to resonableness will remain with the executive  or<\/p>\n
the administrative authority and the secondary judgment<\/p>\n
of  the  Court  is  to  be based  Wednesbury  and  CCSU<\/p>\n
principles  to  find if the executive or administrative<\/p>\n
authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as the<\/p>\n
primary  authority.  Para 31 of this  judgment  of  the<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court,  which  is relevant  is  quoted  herein<\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “31. In such a situation, unless the Court \/
\n     Tribunal opines in its secondary role,  that
\n     the   administrator  was,  on  the  material
\n     before   him,   irrational   according    to
\n     Wednesbury  or  CCSU norms,  the  punishment
\n     cannot  be  quashed.  Even then, the  matter
\n     has  to  be remitted back to the appropriate
\n     authority for reconsideration.  It  is  only
\n     in  very  rare cases as pointed out in  B.C.
\n     Chaturvedi’s case (1995 AIR SCW  4374)  that
\n     the  Court might, – to shorten litigation  –
\n     think of substituting it own view as to  the
\n     Quantum  of punishment in the place  of  the
\n     punishment   awarded   by   the    competent
\n     authority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the aforesaid judgment therefore, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
has  taken a view that when the Court \/ Tribunal opines<\/p>\n
in  its secondary role, that the administrator was,  on<\/p>\n
the  material  before  him,  irrational  according   to<\/p>\n
Wednesbury  or  CCSU norms.  The punishment  cannot  be   <\/p>\n
quashed.   But even then the matter has to be  remitted<\/p>\n
back  to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration<\/p>\n
and  it  is only in very rare cases as pointed  out  in<\/p>\n
B.C.  Chaturvedi’s case that the court might to shorten<\/p>\n
the litigation substitute a lesser punishment than that<\/p>\n
awarded by the disciplinary authority.<\/p>\n
9.    In  Canara  Bank  vs. V.K.  Awasthy<\/a>  (supra)  the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court has only summed up the position of law as <\/p>\n
laid  down in Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham<\/a>  (supra)<\/p>\n
in para 27 of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   In  Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer  (R.K.<\/p>\n
Rai)  Allahabad Bank & Others<\/a> (supra) the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
after   discussing  the  law  as  laid  down  in   B.C.<\/p>\n
Chaturvedi (supra) and in other cases has held that one<\/p>\n
thing is clear that the power of interference with  the<\/p>\n
quantum  of punishment is extremely limited.  But  when<\/p>\n
relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some<\/p>\n
bearing  on  the quantum of punishment,  certainly  the<\/p>\n
Court  can  direct reconsideration or in an appropriate<\/p>\n
case to shorten the litigation, indicate the punishment<\/p>\n
to  be  awarded.  Thus, in this case also in which  the<\/p>\n
great  reliance  has been placed by  Mr.  Deo,  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  appearing for respondent No.2,  factors  which<\/p>\n
are  relevant  and  have  bearing  to  the  quantum  of<\/p>\n
punishment,  if ignored may call for interference  with<\/p>\n
the  order  of punishment by the Court or the  Tribunal<\/p>\n
and not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    Coming  to  the  facts  of  the  present   case,<\/p>\n
paragraphs  5  &  6 of the order of the Tribunal  which<\/p>\n
have  been  quoted  above would show that  the  factors<\/p>\n
which  have  been  taken  into  consideration  by   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal in interfering with the order of punishment of<\/p>\n
removal  passed by the disciplinary authority  is  that<\/p>\n
besides respondents No.2, other superior officers  like<\/p>\n
Sr.   D.E.N.,  D.E.N.,  A.E.N.  and  4  APWI  are  also<\/p>\n
responsible.  But these findings that superior officers<\/p>\n
like  Sr. D.E.N., D.E.N., A.E.N. and 4 Junior PWIs were<\/p>\n
also  responsible along with respondent No.2,  are  not<\/p>\n
based  on any materials in the record collected in  the<\/p>\n
departmental  enquiry.  In exercise  of  the  power  of<\/p>\n
judicial  review the High Court or the Tribunal  cannot<\/p>\n
recall  fresh  finding  of facts  with  regard  to  the<\/p>\n
disciplinary  proceedings which are  not  part  of  the<\/p>\n
record  of the disciplinary proceedings.  The power  of<\/p>\n
the  High Court \/ Tribunal is to only examine the order<\/p>\n
passed  by  the disciplinary authority or the appellate<\/p>\n
authority  on the basis of materials which formed  part<\/p>\n
of the departmental enquiry.  If in the given case, the<\/p>\n
High  Court or the Tribunal is of the view that certain<\/p>\n
further facts need to be inquired into, the High  Court<\/p>\n
or  the  Tribunal  can remit the  matter  back  to  the<\/p>\n
disciplinary  authority for re-enquiry on  those  facts<\/p>\n
and  in  such  re-enquiry only fresh materials  can  be<\/p>\n
adduced  and  brought on record.  While exercising  the<\/p>\n
power of judicial review the High Court or the Tribunal<\/p>\n
cannot  act  as  the  disciplinary  authority  or   the<\/p>\n
appellate authority and record its own finding of facts<\/p>\n
on  the basis of materials placed before the High Court<\/p>\n
or  Tribunal.   This has itself been clarified  in  the<\/p>\n
case  of  B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) that the disciplinary<\/p>\n
and  on  appeal  the  appellate authority,  being  fact<\/p>\n
finding  authorities have exclusive power  to  consider<\/p>\n
the  evidence with a view to maintain discipline.  Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, the fact that the other officers  were  also<\/p>\n
responsible  along with respondent No.2 in  respect  of<\/p>\n
the two charges against respondent No.2 is not relevant<\/p>\n
or  germane to the quantum of punishment to be  imposed <\/p>\n
on  respondent No.2.  If the respondent No.2 was guilty<\/p>\n
of  the  two  charges he was liable for such punishment<\/p>\n
should  not  be  shocking  to  judicial  conscience  or<\/p>\n
strikingly disproportionate.  In the present case,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2  has  been found  guilty  of  the  two<\/p>\n
charges in the departmental enquiry and the findings in<\/p>\n
the   enquiry   report  have  been  accepted   by   the<\/p>\n
disciplinary  authority.  The two charges quoted  above<\/p>\n
are   certainly   grave   charges   warranting   severe<\/p>\n
punishment.   Unless the findings of  the  disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority  with regard to the guilt of respondent  No.2<\/p>\n
are   disturbed  by  the  appellate  authority  or  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal,  we  do  not  think  that  the  Tribunal  can<\/p>\n
possibly reduce the quantum of punishment from  one  of<\/p>\n
removal to that of compulsory retirement.<\/p>\n
12.   But as stated above, it has been submitted by Mr.<\/p>\n
Deo, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that<\/p>\n
besides the challenge to the quantum of punishment, the<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2  had  raised  various  other   grounds<\/p>\n
complaining  of  violation  of  principles  of  natural<\/p>\n
justice and irregularities in the departmental enquiry.<\/p>\n
We  have also perused the records of the Tribunal which<\/p>\n
have been produced before us and we find that in para 5<\/p>\n
of  the  Original Application the respondent  No.2  has<\/p>\n
detailed various grounds including violation of D  &  A<\/p>\n
Rules and the principles of natural justice.  Since Mr.<\/p>\n
Deo  has  submitted that the respondent  No.2  did  not<\/p>\n
challenge  the  impugned order of the  Tribunal  as  by<\/p>\n
virtue  of the Tribunal the respondent No.2 would  have<\/p>\n
been  entitled to pension, we are of the view that  the<\/p>\n
matter  should be remanded back to the Tribunal  for  a<\/p>\n
fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   For  the reasons stated above, we set  aside  the<\/p>\n
impugned   order  dated  22.09.1999  of   the   Central<\/p>\n
Administrative  Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench,  Jabalpur  in<\/p>\n
O.A.no.456  of 1991 and remit the matter  back  to  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal  for fresh hearing and decision in  accordance<\/p>\n
with law.  Since this is an old case, the Tribunal will<\/p>\n
do  well to complete the hearing and finally dispose of<\/p>\n
the  matter within four months from the date of receipt<\/p>\n
of certified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Chief Justice                 Judge\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2000 Union of India & Others …Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur & Another …Respondent ! Present : Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136838","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative ... on 16 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative ... on 16 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-01T01:31:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T01:31:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\"},\"wordCount\":3207,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative ... on 16 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T01:31:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative ... on 16 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative ... on 16 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-01T01:31:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005","datePublished":"2005-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T01:31:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2"},"wordCount":3207,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2","name":"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative ... on 16 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T01:31:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-others-vs-the-central-administrative-on-16-june-2005-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Others vs The Central Administrative … on 16 June, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136838","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136838\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}