The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority companyverted the punishment of removal into one of companypulsory retirement.
It was further alleged that he got married for the second time in October, 1974 with one Ushabai.
Therefore, the Appellate Authority was directed to companysider the matter afresh with regard to the quantum of punishment.
On the basis of this number disclosure, which, authorities companysidered to be a misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated.
It was submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously held that there was numberapplication for companydonation of delay.
The Tribunal came to hold that the application was barred by limitation and accordingly declined to entertain the same.
The said order was passed on 15.4.1997.
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in short the Tribunal on 13.12.1998.
Assailing order passed by the Tribunal a Writ application was filed.
The Tribunal recorded a finding that numberapplication for companydonation of delay has been filed.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent was a Store Attendant in the Bank Note Press, District Dewas M.P .
The enquiry was companyducted under Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 in short the Rules .
It is to be numbered that the number disclosure came to the numberice of the authorities when Parvathibai made a companyplaint about the second marriage.
The Enquiry Officer recorded findings in favour of the respondent.
A charge sheet was issued against him on the foundation that though he had got married with one Parvathibai in the year 1973, while filling up the attestation form on 16.3.1974, he did number show her name as his wife.
The Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and came to hold that second marriage had in fact been performed and accordingly it issued show cause numberice to the respondent and eventually came to hold that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and imposed the punishment of removal by order dated 2.4.1996.
Arising out of SLP C No.
19946 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur holding that the punishment of companypulsory retirement imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
