He was ultimately dismissed by the disciplinary authority by order dated 7.8.1997.
The companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass and is as under Respondent herein referred to as the employee was proceeded against departmentally on the charge that on 27/28.2.1996 while posted in the vigilance cell at the Indira Gandhi International Airport he accepted illegal gratification for getting two Afghan nationals cleared through Customs without paying the Customs duty payable.
The respondent employee was directed to be reinstated forthwith.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its order dated 5.12.2001 dismissed the writ petition as infructuous by observing as follows We are informed that respondent stands already reinstated in service pursuant to Tribunal order dated 21.11.2000 passed in OA.95/98 rendering this petition as good as infructuous.
The appeal preferred by him was also rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 20.11.1997.
Challenging these orders the respondent employee filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in short the Tribunal .
By order dated 21.11.2000, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of dismissal dated 7.8.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the appellate authority.
The order passed by the Tribunal was questioned by the present appellant by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The union of India and the Additional Commissioner of Police OPS , New Delhi have questioned companyrectness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the present appellants as infructuous.
