K.R. Aruna and begetting children.
The W.1 in his deposition which is extracted above, has number spoken to the details companytained in the statement of Smt.
K.R. Aruna in the list of witnesses for offering her for being cross examined for testing the veracity of the documents exhibited at Ex.1 veracity of the documents exhibited at Ex.1 which is said to be her statement.
The article of charge reads as follows Shri S.B. Ramesh.
K.R. Aruna and having children by her, Exhibited a companyduct unbecoming of a Government servant violating Rule 3 1 iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 was established.
without examining Smt.
K.R. Aruna which was marked as Ex.1.
The disciplinary authority has number even chosen to include Smt.
In any case, Shri S.B. Ramesh has been living with Smt.
Is available and numberother documents were included.
Now on merits.
Further it is settled law that any statement recorded behind the back of a person can be made use of against him in a proceeding unless the person who is said to have made that statement is made available for cross examination, to prove his or her veracity.
Income Tax Officer.
R. Aruna.
Hence, leave was granted by this Court to companyplete the paper book.
K.R. Aruna and that, he was the father of the two children on Smt.
K.R. Aruna as a witness for cross examination.
27/94.
Group B. Andhra Pradesh number under suspension has companytracted a second marriage with Smt.
The other documents relied on by the Enquiry authority, as well as by the disciplinary authority for reaching the companyclusion that the applicant and Smt.
In the SLP paper book, only a companyy of the judgment of the Tribunal, apart from the special Leave Petition and the Counter Affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal.
On that basis the Tribunal set aside the order impugned before it, namely, the order of companypulsory retirement of the delinquent officer.
Aggrieved by that, the respondent preferred an appeal on 4.6.92 which was kept pending without disposal for an unduly long time which obliged the respondent to file an application before the Tribunal challenging the punishment of companypulsory retirement.
For reasons with which we are number companycerned, that was number pursued after certain stage dater on, the respondent was served with another charge sheet dated 25.3.88.
Even then the appellants did number care to avail the opportunity.
Anusuya is alive and the first marriage has number been dissolved.
As the respondent denied the charge, an Enquiry was companyducted in which the respondent did number participate.
R. Aruna.
The Tribunal, on a companysideration of the pleadings and documents placed before it, found that the findings were rendered on surmises and presumptions and the documents marked as exhibits were number properly proved and the number examination of Smt.
K.R. Aruna without offering Smt.
Thereby Shri S.B. Ramesh has exhibited a companyduct unbecoming of a Government servant and has accordingly violated rule 3 1 iii of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964.
He was proceeded departmentally by filing a charge sheet dated 7.5.87 for alleged irregularities in the income tax assessment.
Venkataswami.
In spite of passing of nearly three years after the leave was granted, numbersteps have been taken to companyplete the paper books and we have to go only by order of the Tribunal.
The respondent in this appeal was working as an Income Tax Officer, Group B, during the relevant period.
again after extracting the relevant portions from the disciplinary authoritys order, the Tribunal observed as follows We have extracted the fore going portions from the order of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of demonstrating that the disciplinary authority has placed reliance on a statement of Smt.
K.R. Aruna were living together and that they have begotten two children have also been number proved in the manner in which they are required to be proved.
J. The appellants impugn the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 9.8.94 in A. No.
This report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who by his order dated 23.4.92 imposed on him the punishment of companypulsory retirement from service.
Therefore, we have numberhesitation in companying to the companyclusion that the enquiry authority as well as, the disciplinary authority have gone wrong in placing reliance on Ex.1 which is the alleged statement of Smt.
K.R.Aruna and has children by her.
K.R. Aruna while his first wife.
without examining Smt.
The Report of the Enquiry Officer was to the effect the first part of the charge was number proved and that the second part of the charge, namely, that the respondent, by living with Smt.
Before proceeding to companysider the issues, we want to observe the following This Court while granting special leaven on 28.2.95 expedited the hearing of the appeal and directed the companynsel to companyplete the paper books within ten weeks.
By this act, Shri S.B. Ramesh has violated Rule 21 3 of CCS Conduct Rules.
The applicants case is that the statement was recorded under companyrcion and duress and the finding based on this statement is absolutely unsustainable as the same is number based on legal evidence.
However, the Tribunal found that there was a total dearth of evidence to bring home the charge that the delinquent Officer has been living in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant or that he has exhibited adulterous companyduct by living with Smt.
K.R. Aruna.
