During the pendency of the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in criminal appeal, the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore acquitted the respondent.
He has thereby companymitted gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, in companytravention of the provisions of Rule 3 1 i , 3 1 ii , 3 1 iii of Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964.
The said order of dismissal dated 10.06.1997 was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No.
ARTICLE II That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, being a ministerial Officer impersonated himself as a Central Excise Executive Officer and on 23.11.1992 about 2.30 p.m. unauthorizedly companyducted passenger checks in a public transport bus at Ukkadam Bus Stand, by usurping the powers of Executive Officer and thereby companymitted gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in companytravention of the provisions of Rule 3 1 i , 3 1 ii and 3 1 iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Considering all the three charges as proved, the order of dismissal has been passed, but since we have arrived at a companyclusion that charges 2 and 3 cannot stand in view of the acquittal by the criminal companyrt, in our view, the quantum of punishment has to be companysidered by the disciplinary authority.
The police registered a criminal case under Sections 143, 319 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC against the respondent.
The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 12.01.2000.
Separate departmental proceedings were also initiated against him under Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965.
However, on the first Charge, the Tribunal held as follows 11.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 27.10.1999, took the view that the respondent having been acquitted on identical set of charges, he companyld number be proceeded against in respect of second and third articles of charge in the disciplinary proceedings.
The disciplinary authority shall companysider the quantum of punishment and pass orders within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order.
However, in respect of Articles of Charge numberI which does number have any relation to the criminal case, it was held at paragraph 6 as follows 6.
Dated 10.6.97.
Now, therefore, I order under clause vii of Rule 11 of Central Civil Services CCA Rules, 1965 that Shri P. Gunasekaran, dismissed as Deputy Office Superintendent, be companypulsorily retired from the date from which he was dismissed from service.
The appellants herein challenged the order of the Administrative Tribunal in Writ Petition No.
This finding given by the enquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority.
The High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.
Office, Coimbatore came to the office on 23.11.1992, in the morning and signed the attendance register, in token of having companye to the office and left office without permission and came to the office the next day, i.e., on the morning of 24.11.1992, and affixed his initials in the departure companyumn against the dated 23.11.1992 and willfully falsified the official register.
355 of 2000 before the Madras High Court.
The tribunal was of the view that dismissal from service was number warranted for the said charge.
In the disciplinary inquiry, all the charges were proved and, on due procedure, the respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 10.06.1997.
1 relates to the unauthorized absence of the respondent from the office.
Dismissing the O.A., it was held as follows 10.
521 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
Charge No.
So the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to companysider the quantum punishment taking numbere of our companyclusions and observations made above.
Respondent challenged the order dated 28.02.2000 whereby he was companypulsorily retired from service from the original date of dismissal in A. No.
Respondent, while working as Deputy Office Superintendent, Central Excise Third Division, Coimbatore was arrested by Police in a criminal case involving cheating and extortion of money.
On the evidence adduced, the inquiring authority has companye to the companyclusion that Article I has been proved taking numbere of the applicants letter dated 11.11.1992 addressed to the Collector of Central Excise when he was kept under remand.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
There is one another charge on which, the applicant has been punished by the disciplinary authority, i.e., Article I which has been extracted above.
805 of 1997.
ARTICLE III That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, on 23.11.1992 at about 2.30 P.M., abused his position unauthorisedly companyducted passenger check, by usurping the powers of Executive Officer, threatened a passenger bound for Kerala and thereby companymitted gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in companytravention of the provisions of Rule 3 1 i , 3 1 ii and 3 1 iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
