- (1.) Instant petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dt. 16/11/2000. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-employee was working as Mistri in Gas Section Workshop, Kota in the year 1979 and this post was upgraded in September, 1981 and he was promoted as Chargeman. While he was holding the post of Chargeman of the Section, on reconciliation of the records, it revealed that 19 gas cylinders were missing and holding him to be responsible, an enquiry under the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968, for minor penalties, was initiated against him by serving him a notice and after taking note of his representation and the available records, the disciplinary authority arrived to a conclusion that the charge against him stands proved and holding him guilty, punished him with the penalty of recovery of Rs. 34,000/- to adjust loss which was caused to the establishment vide order dt. 24/07/1987 and it reveals from the record that earlier the respondent-employee approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application and that came to be decided with direction to the disciplinary authority in affording him opportunity and assign reasons in upholding the charge against him. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority re-looked the matter and taking note of the defence of the respondent-employee, arrived to a conclusion that the procedure prescribed under the Scheme of Rules of 1968 was followed for inflicting minor penalty and after the charge stood finally proved, held him guilty and punished him with the punishment to the extent of recovery of the amount of Rs. 34,000/- to adjust the loss which was caused to the establishment and we find from the order passed by the department/disciplinary authority dt. 31/01/1995 that all the objections raised by the respondent-employee available in his defence have been considered by the department/disciplinary authority and after repealing his contention, upheld the order of penalty inflicted upon him.
(2.) The respondent-employee thereafter again approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 73/1996 and after the parties being heard, the ld. Tribunal under its order impugned, treating it to be a super appellate authority, re-appreciated the finding of fact which at one stage re-looked by the disciplinary authority and confirmed about his responsibility as a Chargeman assigned to him for the period during which on reconciliation of statements of records, 19 gas cylinders were missing and a financial loss of Rs. 34,000/- was caused to the establishment and to the extent of monetary loss suffered on account of the alleged misconduct being committed by the employee, the penalty for an equal sum of Rs. 34,000/- was inflicted upon him to be recovered.
(3.) However, the ld. Tribunal proceeded on the premise that no preliminary enquiry was conducted and the fact, which all the time referred to is that the respondent-employee as alleged was not the incharge of gas section and letters has been addressed to one Mr. Hari Shankar and no disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Hari Shankar and he was absolved from initiating disciplinary enquiry, arrived to a conclusion that the very charge-sheet served upon the respondent-employee was not justified and in the absence of a preliminary enquiry being conducted, the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority in holding the respondent-employee guilty and passing order of penalty of recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- was not sustainable.;