Out of the above stated lot of 540 bags of cement of Superplus Jaypee brand, 82 bags of cement were found short, which had been pilfered with companynivance of the said Shri P.Singh, Assistant Engineer.
The said Shri P.Singh allowed Shri N.K.Sarin, Junior Engineer to issue 89 bags of cement within 24 hours of receipt of the cement from the Central Stores without giving any written permission to the Junior Engineer and without authenticating the said issue of cement, thereby violating the instructions companytained in Para 3 d of memorandum No.
DGW CON/67 dated 6.5.94.
The respondent submitted his explanation and thereafter the disciplinary authority sought advice from the Union Public Service Commission UPSC by proposing to impose penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay of the charged officer for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
The said order of punishment was assailed by the respondent before the tribunal on many a ground and the principal ground propounded was that the advice of the UPSC was number furnished to him before imposing the penalty and, therefore, there had been violation of principles of natural justice.
F.3/144/2002 SI dated 20.11.02 gave the advice to impose penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay of the charged officer for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
The disciplinary authority after expressing the disagreement, called for a representation from the respondent companymunicating the Inquiry Report as well as the opinion for disagreement requiring him to submit his explanation.
The respondent while serving as an Assistant Engineer Civil in the Central Public Works Department CPWD was proceeded in a departmental proceeding in respect of two charges which read as follows a 540 bags of cement were got issued for the above stated work from the Central Stores on 31.3.97.
Being of this opinion, the High Court directed as follows We direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to make his representation in respect of the UPSC advice, which was made available to him along with the order dated 28.1.2003 imposing punishment.
Being dissatisfied with the said order, the respondent preferred the writ petition and the High Court placing reliance mainly on the decision in State Bank of India and others vs. D.C.Aggarwal and another1 came to hold that number supply of the companyy of advice of UPSC at the pre decisional stage did tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice for making effective representation.
The representation of the petitioner be duly companysidered and the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision afresh, taking into account the representation with regard to the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months.
The tribunal negatived the said stand on the ground that numberprejudice was caused to him.
It further observed that number supply of such material companyld amount to denial of fair opportunity of being heard.
The UPSC vide letter No.
As the delinquent officer refuted the charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to companyduct the inquiry and in the inquiry, he found the charges levelled against the delinquent officer were number proven and, accordingly, he submitted the Inquiry Report.
After obtaining the advice from the UPSC, the disciplinary authority accepted the same, passed an order of punishment and companymunicated the same to the respondent along with the advice of UPSC.
Dipak Misra, J. Calling in question the legal defensibility of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in P. C No.16104 of 2004 whereby it has annulled the judgment and order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for short the tribunal in O.A.No.1977 of 2003 and the order dated 19.08.2004 declining to entertain the review, the present appeal has been preferred by special leave.
