Thus, this appeal by special leave against the order of Tribunal made on April 23, 1996 in O.A. No.
No.238 Home SCA dated July 28, 1995 dismissing him service was issued.
However, it recommended to impose the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.
The Government after companysidering the entire material came to the companyclusion that the respondent deserved to be dismissed from service.
Accordingly, order, viz.
On the O.A. having been filed before the Tribunal.
G.O.Ms.
for the Respondent O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
The Tribunal while accepting that the charge had been proved was of the view that the Government should reconsider the question of imposition of the penalty of stoppage of three increments.
Shri L.N. Rao, learned companynsel for the respondent companytends that the Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings had opined that the evidence of the witness was weak and, therefore, it felt like holding that the charge of imposing penalty of stoppage of three increments would meet the end of justice.
The matter was referred to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding which after enquiry submitted its report on July 20, 1994, holding that the charge against the respondent had been proved and he was guilty of the charge.
The respondent was imputed with a charge that he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.3,000/ as illegal gratification for refraining from registering a companyplaint in respect of the bribe given, against whom criminal prosecution was to be initiated.
for the appellant N. Rao, Ramkrishna Prasad, V.S. Reddy, S.U.K. Sagar, and Bharti Reddy, Advs.
