- (1.) Sanjay Kumar Singh is before this Court, assailing the validity of the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad affirming the orders passed by the authority concerned reducing the subsistence allowance.
(2.) Brief background of the case, as is reflected from the record, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on 11.6.1993 in the office of Accountant General (A & E)-II, U.P. Allahabad. Thereafter he was promoted on the posts of Accountant and Senior Accountant. During checking of attendance on 24.2.2012 at about 4.15 p.m., a mob of about 150 to 200 employees of office of A.G. (A&E)-I and II, UP Allahabad assembled in front of chamber of Shri Sachin Kapoor, Deputy Accountant General (Administration) and gheraoed his chamber and shouted disrespectful and pejorative slogan and abusive language to him. The said mob broke the glasses of ventilator and after pulling out curtains, set it on fire. They also threw broken glasses, broom stick, bottle of acid, seat of commode, mugs, stones, name plate and viper etc. in the chamber of Shri Sachin Kapoor. The mob also broke three bio-metric machines, furniture, fixtures, wall clock, computers, printers and personal car of Shri Sachin Kapoor. It is alleged that the petitioner was part of that mob. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended on 25.2.2012 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings by respondent no.4 and his entry was also banned in the office premises. Again the petitioner participated in demonstration and unauthorized meetings on several occasions between 27.2.2012 and 23.3.2012 and also created traffic jam on 1.3.2012 in front of Gate No.1 of the office and also violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) and Rule 7 of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
(3.) By order dated 26.3.2012 the petitioner was directed to be paid half average pay of leave salary as subsistence allowance. On 18.5.2012 the suspension order was further extended for 90 days with effect from 25.5.2012 and the payment of subsistence allowance was decreased by 50%. The respondents again issued an order dated 22.8.2012 for extending the suspension period for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 23.8.2012 and the payment of subsistence allowance was kept unchanged. The petitioner submitted a representation on 20.5.2012 against the order dated 18.5.2012 decreasing the subsistence allowance by 50% after 90 days and irregularly paying the subsistence allowance only 25% of leave salary. The petitioner again submitted representation dated 30.8.2012 against the order dated 22.8.2012 for continuing the subsistence allowance at 25%. Thereafter, the petitioner sent reminder on 11.10.2012 against the orders dated 18.5.2012 and 22.8.2012. When nothing had happened, the petitioner had proceeded to approach Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short, the Tribunal) by means of Original Application No.1540 of 2012 (Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and ors) for quashing the orders dated 18.5.2012 and 22.8.2012 and for issuing directions to pay 75% subsistence allowance to the leave salary after 90 days of suspension. By the impugned order dated 11.12.2015, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the original application in question, giving rise to the writ petition.;