P.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.) In this application, the applicant who is currently working as Chief Goods Supervisor is aggrieved with an order, dated 15.7.1986 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing on him the punishment of reduction in rank to the post of Sr. Goods Clerk in the scale of Rs. 330 -560 fixing salary in that scale at Rs. 330 per month for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect. An order, dated 11.9.86/29.9.86 was passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the ending of guilt but reducing the punishment to the fixation of his salary at Rs. 563 in the next below grade Rs. 330 -560 for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect.
(2.) Mrs. Kanika Banerjee, counsel for the applicant submitted in the first place that the Inquiry Officer appointed to conduct an inquiry into the charges levelled against the applicant had exonerated the applicant of the said charges and yet the Disciplinary Authority had held him guilty and imposed the penalty. The Inquiry Officer had held that from the evidence made available before him there was not sufficient ground to hold the applicant guilty of the charges levelled against him. As against the order of Disciplinary Authority the applicant filed an appeal which was decided by the Appellate Authority with a cryptic order which reads as follows: However, the punishment is revised while agreeing to punishment as imposed by Sr. D.C.S. The pay initiated of being fixed at Rs. 330 be now fixed at Rs. 560 in next below grade Rs. 330 -Rs. 560 for a period of 2 years N.C. Obviously the word 'initiated' occurring in this order is a misprint for 'instead'. Mrs. Banerjee submits that there being no evidence to uphold the guilt of the applicant, the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority should be quashed.
(3.) Mr. Ram Tirth, counsel for the respondents supported the orders of the authorities and sought to refute the contention of Mrs. Banerjee.;