PRADEEP KANT, RAN VIJAI SINGH, JJ. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava and Sri Ajit Kumar Misra, the respondent, who appears in person.
(2.) THE respondent who was working as a clerk in the Military Farm Services at Lucknow was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of certain charges, wherein he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 30.12.2002. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Affidavits were exchanged between the parties and thereafter the Tribunal has allowed the original application after holding that the complete enquiry report was not forwarded to the respondent and, therefore, the enquiry report by furnished to the respondent and the enquiry be completed accordingly. The Tribunal did not enter upon the merits of the order of compulsory retirement and only on the ground that complete enquiry report since was not furnished to the respondent has set aside the order, with liberty to supply the enquiry report and proceed thereafter. The other point which weighed with the Tribunal was that the order of punishment is not a speaking order.
(3.) TRIBUNAL 's finding is that the complete enquiry report of the enquiry dated 18.11.1996 was not furnished to the respondent. The Tribunal assumed that since vide letter dated 23.2.1998, the petitioner responded to the letter of the respondent dated 19.11.1997, wherein it was admitted that the copy of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Major M. S. Prakash were inadvertently not forwarded to the respondent earlier, means that the enquiry continued even after 18.11.1996, i.e., the date of enquiry report, supplied by the respondent.;