- (1.) The petitioners Union of India and Foreign Trade Officer have filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and challenged the impugned Judgment and order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short "Tribunal") in OA No. 689 of 1997, filed by the respondent original applicant, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the Application and quashed and set aside the impugned order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Reviewing Authority of reduction in the immediate lower stage in the time scale of pay for two years with all consequences.
(2.) The original applicant was serving as Typist in the Office of Joint Director of Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad present petitioner No.2. Charge sheet dated 22.7.1985 for the incident of 6.11.1980, was served after a period of almost five years. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that Shri M.L. Vansfoda, LDC in the office of Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Ahmedabad, was dealing with the case of M/s. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., Rajkot, of issuing additional license dated 6.11.1980 for Rs.44,60,722/-. While doing so he (Shri Vansfoda) failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Common inquiry was held in the charges against Shri H.C.Dabrai, M. C. Vansfoda and S.B.Kotivan. During the inquiry Shri Kotivan expired, hence the charge against him was deleted. However, the charge against two other remaining officers Shri Dabrai and Shri Vansfoda was held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer. Their case was sent to U.P.S.C. for advise as the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that charges were rightly found to be proved. Therefore, penalty was imposed on both the officers. However, UPSC did not agree with the same and advised against it. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the advise of the UPSC and after obtaining the approval from CVC and consulting the department of Personnel and Training imposed penalty.
(3.) The case of the petitioner was that he was merely a Typist and whatever dictated to him by his superior officer was transcribed by him in the license. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not accept his defence and came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that he had done as per the dictate of the superior officer. Thus, the order of penalty of stoppage of reduction of lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years was imposed with future consequences. The Reviewing Authority has also agreed with the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The said orders were challenged before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and order dated 10.1.2003 allowed the application and quashed both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority which is challenged in this petition.;