- (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the review application as well as original application filed by the applicant-petitioner herein.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC on 12.1.1983 and within a very short span of time in 5 years, he has shown his colour for which he was issued charge sheet alleging that he received double payment of salary from two different places since August, 1996 to January 1997. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after conducting the inquiry arrived at the finding that charges against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal which was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as tribunal.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharma has taken us to para no.7 of the petition which reads as under:- 7. Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by a Railway servant to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or breach of orders-It is open to the competent authority to inflict in addition to the penalty of recovery from pay of the loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders by any of the penalties specified in clause (i), (ii), (iii-a) (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Rule 6 of the R.S. (D & A) Rules 1968 by way of one and the same order and in pursuance of one and the same proceedings. In this case the petitioner does not admit that he has caused any loss to railway and he has received double salary but even then for the sake of argument whatever loss by any person has been caused to Railway such loss has been recovered by the department from the applicant. Therefore, the penalty or removal and dismissal could not have been passed in this case so the impugned order of removal is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Since, the learned Tribunal has not considered this law and fact therefore the judgment of learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 3.1 He also taken us to the various documents of railway department and contended that since the amount is recovered, penalty of dismissal of the petitioner is not warranted. 3.2 He also taken us to the Government Circular dt. 15.11.1984 which reads as under:- JUDGEMENT_151_LAWS(RAJ)7_2018_1.html 3.3 Counsel for the petitioner has also taken us to the statement of one Smt. Sadhana Shrivastava, Head Clerk where in nothing was against the petition. The statement of one Sh. Shuresh Bhatiya, OSI (commercial branch/ET branch) were also taken into consideration which reads as under: Q.3 I am enquiring into the charges of Sh. R.K. Parmarthak, Head Clerk, Store section W-5 section during that period he has been transferred in Aug.1996 to TRD Kota and from Aug. 1996 to January 1997 Sh. R.K. Parmarthak was drawing regular payment from Bill Unit No.408(4) as well as Bill Unit No.85 what do you want to say about that Ans. I am not aware about this thing. I have nothing to say. As I took over charge of pay Bill Engineering section on 15 January 1997.;