On the basis of the enquiry report, by order dated June 13, 1988 passed by the Controller General of Defence Accounts, the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent was imposed the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f.
the respondent appealed.
16.600/ Rupees sixteen thousand and six hundred only in S.B.I. on account of Canteen CSD CDA P Allahabad, number returned the said amount to the Treasurer, CDA P CSD Canteen.
With such being the state of affairs, the Tribunal companyld number say that there was numberevidence to hold the charges proved against the respondent.
THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present Honble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar Honble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa C. Mahajan, Sr.
The Tribunal wrongly came to the companyclusion that the proceedings companyducted by the enquiry officer were violative of the principles of natural justice.
That the respondent received this amount was duly evidenced by receipt signed by him.
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the Tribunal.
16,6000/ by the respondent.
for Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
for the with him for the appellants.
The Tribunal, while setting aside the enquiry report and the orders of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, directed that the respondent be treated as having companytinued in service till his date of superannuation and at the same time gave liberty to the appellants herein to proceed against the respondent in a departmental enquiry office onwards.
This amount was balance amount out of Rs.36,600/ which the respondent received on April 16, 1984 from the companytroller CDA P CAS Canteen for depositing the same in the Saving account of CSD Canteen.
Union of India is in appeal.
It is aggrieved by the judgment dated December 10, 1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench for short, short, the Tribunal setting aside the enquiry report and the order of dismissal passed against the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Tribunal companyld number sit in appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellant Authorities in exercise of its powers of Judicial review.
Advs.,
Kishore Kr.
The enquiry officer held the charges two to five proved against the respondent.
July 8, 1988.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. Wadhwa, J. Leave granted.
During the relevant period, the respondent was working as a cashier in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts Pensions .
Article of Charges III Shri B.K. Srivastava, SGA A C No.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on five charges which were as under Articles of Charges Article on Charge 1 Shri B.K. Srivastava, SGA A C No.
His appeal was dismissed by the Secretary Defence Finance FA by order dated October 31, 1989 and the order imposing penalty of dismissal on the respondent was affirmed.
Article of Charges V Shri B.K. Srivastava, SGA A C NO.
Patel, Adv.
Since there was criminal prosecution against the respondent on the first charge, the enquiry proceedings relating to that charge were stayed.
C. Agarwal, Sr.
B.K. Mishra, Ms. Shabana and Ejaz Maqbool, advs.
