M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 134/2006 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application seeking reduction of his punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceeding.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner, Ex -Servicemen, was appointed as caretaker in the office of the respondent -Accountant General (A & E) Ranchi. He was subsequently re -designated as Senior Caretaker. In the year 1994, while working as such, petitioner was served with a charge -sheet alleging that he has failed to provide proper security measures to save the office properties and because of his act of misconduct, the Office lost one generator set from the premises. Petitioner was also charge -sheeted for keeping cattle in his official residence which is adjacent to the main office in violation of the order of the Estate Officer. Since the petitioner was found guilty of some of the charges, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner ultimately challenged the said punishment so awarded by filing application before the Tribunal in the year 1996 being O.A. No. 227 of 1996. The Tribunal disposed of the application in terms of order dated 15.12.2000 holding that punishment of compulsory retirement is in a higher side and, therefore, direction was issued to the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh regarding quantum of punishment. The Appellate Authority then took the view that the Disciplinary Authority though in his order held that dismissal from service could have been the appropriate punishment, yet a lenient view was taken and the punishment of dismissal was converted into a punishment of compulsory retirement, petitioner again moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 41/2001 and the matter was again remanded to the respondent -Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that in case of compulsory retirement, petitioner would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. Despite the fact that petitioner completed only eight years and eight months of service and not ten years of service till the date of Compulsory retirement, he has been authorised to post retirement benefits as admissible to an official with less than ten years of qualifying service. In 2004, the order of remand passed by the Tribunal came for consideration before this Court in W.P.S. No. 3780/2004. In the said writ petition, however, it was agreed between the parties that the matter needs to be considered by the Revisional Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Revisional Authority to consider the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Revisional Authority heard the parties and finally came to the conclusion that the enquiry procedure was meticulously followed and the charges against the petitioner were established. The Revisional Authority further found that petitioner has been authorized benefit of post retirement as admissible to an official with less than ten years' of qualifying service.
(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we found that the Tribunal has considered all the orders time to time passed by the Departmental Authority and the order passed by the Authority needs no interference inasmuch as punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner cannot be reduced.;