Y.R.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner, a pensioner, having retired from the post of O.S.L from the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.7.1997 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (Annexure -A 28 to the writ petition) rejecting thereby his application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Act, 1985, the order dated 3.7.1991 (Annexure -A 25 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4, imposing punishment of reduction of pay at two stages in the scale of Rs. 1,680 -2,040 and order dated 31.3.1992 (Annexure -A 27 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to pay the entire arrears of his salary and other retiral benefits with interest.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner on 10.1.1990 was working as Upper Division Clerk, Stores in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200 -2,040 in the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur. It is alleged that on the aforesaid date at 12.30 p.m., petitioner incited certain employees creating thereby confusion which caused hindrance in the disposal of scraps. A board of enquiry was constituted to enquire into the incident of 10.1.1990, which required the petitioner to appear before it on 28.2.1990 at 15 hours in the office of W.M./S.A.F to give his testimony on the point of scraps disposal incident, which allegedly took place on 10.1.1990. The petitioner instead of appearing before the Board of enquiry sent a letter requesting for furnishing certain materials to enable him to give his testimony, but instead of furnishing the materials asked for by him a departmental enquiry was ordered and he was served with a charge -sheet containing two charges of gross misconduct, first that on 10.1.1990 at 12.30 p.m. while he was working as Upper Division Clerk, Stores he incited the employees andcreated confusion thereby causing hindrance in the disposal of the scraps and secondly that he refused to appear before the Board on 28.2.1990 at 15 hours to give his testimony regarding disposal of scraps. The enquiry officer after making enquiry held the petitioner guilty of both the charges, whereupon the disciplinary authority respondent No. 4 inflicted the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner at two stages. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the appellate authority but to no avail. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the C.A.T., under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which was dismissed, dissatisfied from which he has invoked the writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have heard the petitioner in person and Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE main trust of the arguments raised by the petitioner is that there was no evidence worth the name before the enquiry officer on which he could have held the petitioner guilty of the charges, hence the disciplinary authority was not Justified in inflicting the punishment. He has also urged that he was demanding senior scale, as a result of which the respondents got annoyed and implicated and punished him in this false case. According to him, the Tribunal ignoring all these facts, has wrongly dismissed his application and there are cogent and valid reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, the enquiry report and the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the respondents, highlighting the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, has argued that this is not a case in which any interference is called for by this Court.;