- (1.) IN all the above cases, common question of law is involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these writ petitions are decided by this common order while taking into consideration facts narrated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5759/2007 Union of India and Ors. v. Ranjeet Kumar and Anr....
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case indicate that employee Ranjeet Kumar filed original application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in which order of penalty of dismissal dated 19.07.2004 and order of appellate authority dated 14 - 11/12 -2004 were challenged and following prayer was made: (a) That the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant be awarded the cost of litigation. (b) That the impugned enquiry report Annexure A -3 and orders Annexure A -2 passed by the disciplinary authority dated 19 -7 -2004 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the applicant and the Annexure A -1, passed by the Appellate authority dated 14 -11/12 -04 upholding the penalty imposed upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority may kindly be quashed. (c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits including his regularization in service with all financial benefits from the date his batch mates/juniors have been regularized. While deciding the above original application, following adjudication was made by the Tribunal: Undisputedly in the charge sheet there were four number of list of documents by which the article of charges were framed and were proposed to be sustained but none of those documents have either been properly discussed or examined to prove the charges. No witness, out of two witnesses has been examined at all. It appears that the enquiry officer proceeded with pre -determined mind to prove the charge. When the applicant submitted that he had not submitted any certificate as alleged in the charge sheet, no examination has been done by I.O. To prove that it is applicant who had submitted the certificate. Secondly, when the applicant claimed that the enquiry has been got conducted for a different school resulting into a wrong report, no finding has been recorded even on this issue. Thus, it is a case of no evidence. The report was submitted by the enquiry officer which was accepted by the disciplinary authority without proper application of mind and the appellate authority has also failed to discharge is function. Once the report of enquiry officer shows that the finding recorded against the applicant is without any evidence and as such perverse and as such the punishment order as well as appellate authority also become void ab initio. Accordingly this O.A. is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The applicant will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. However, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the rules, law and principles of natural justice. No costs.
(3.) UPON perusal of the above order, it is abundantly clear that the learned Tribunal while allowing the original application quashed the impugned orders and while granting all consequential benefits further held that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the applicant (respondent No. 1 herein) in accordance with rules, law and principles of natural justice.;