- (1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the disciplinary action initiated against him which finally stands proved and was punished with penalty of removal from service vide order dt. 10.7.1997 and affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dt. 1.5.1998 and the revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dt. 21.2.2003 which further came to be assailed before CAT in OA 259/2003 and that was dismissed assigning detailed reasons vide order dt. 4.11.2004 which is impugned in this petition. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on the post of booking clerk vide order dt. 21.5.1993. However, a vigilance team of the department conducted a surprise check on 22.1.1995 al about 17.30 hours and on report of the vigilance team of the department, petitioner was charge sheeted dt. 31.8.1995. After holding regular enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to him as per the requirement of the disciplinary rules available with the establishment of the respondent, both the charges found proved against the delinquent petitioner and disciplinary authority had its agreement with the enquiry report and after affording opportunity of hearing punished him with the penalty of removal from service assigning detailed reasons dt. 10.7.1997 which came to be assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal and revision before respective authorities which came to be dismissed vide orders dt. 1.5.1998 and 21.2.2003 and that was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA before the Tribunal and raised various multifarious grounds that was examined in detail and the tribunal was of the view that the process adopted by the respondent was in conformity with the disciplinary rules and the petitioner was unable to satisfy that he was ever deprived of opportunity of hearing at any stage or there was a violation of principle of natural justice and as regards quantum of punishment, looking to the gravity of misconduct, the learned Tribunal examined as to whether the punishment inflicted was shockingly disproportionate, however, finally came to the conclusion that charge which stands proved against the petitioner and is not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved which may require interference by the Tribunal.
(2.) WE have heard counsel for parties at length and what is being contended before us is nothing but a reiteration of the arguments made before the Tribunal and do not find any apparent manifest error in the order of the tribunal and which may require interference under limited scope of judicial review available with us under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition being wholly devoid of merit accordingly stands dismissed.;