( 1 ) IS writ petition is directed against an order dated 7-4-1999 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in o. A. No. 664 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the unofficial respondent No. 2 herein was disposed of directing:"13. (1) Hence the orders, the legality of which is challenged in this O. A. are quashed and set aside. (2) The applicant is directed to be reinstated without any backwages and without any continuity of service. (3) In other words, the intervening period between the date of the applicant s removal from service till his reinstatement shall be treated as dies non. (4) The applicant shall be reinstated on the same post on which he was working prior to the removal. If the same is not available, he may be posted on any equivalent post or even on any inferior post. The preference, however, shall be for the same post, failing which the second preference shall be for equivalent post. (5) the above directions shall be carried out within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order. (6) Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for timely compliance with the above order. "

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The applicant was appointed as a driver in the ordnance factory project. He was charge-sheeted on the ground that he has been carrying on loose bundle of cotton swap in his tiffin bag on 8-4-1983. When he was asked to explain, he allegedly stated that he had been carrying the same to prevent jerks which may spoil his food and further stated that he had to frequently visit his agricultural land and he required the same for cleaning hands. However, in the enquiry he categorically stated that he had not declared the same by mistake which was absolutely necessary having regard to the fact that he was holding a responsible post in an ordnance factory in the Ministry of Defence. According to the petitioner such declaration was not made having regard to the fact that it was not a matter of much importance.

( 3 ) A disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent was initiated wherein he was found guilty. The disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service and an appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent herein before the appellate authority was dismissed whereafter an original application was filed before the learned Tribunal which was marked as o. A. No. 579 of 1995. By an order dated 7-1-1998 the appropriate authority was directed by the Tribunal to pass necessary orders on the appeal preferred by the applicant but the appeal was not disposed of within a reasonable time. In the said order it was observed:"we feel that reconsideration of punishment may be required in this case. We leave it to the appellate authority to consider his request for reduction in the penalty already awarded to him by the disciplinary authority in accordance with the rules and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the said appeal was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal having regard to the issues raised before it came to the conclusion that only one question arose for its consideration as to whether the punishment of removal from service was grossly unjust and highly disproportionate to the misconduct. The learned Tribunal relying on a decision of the apex Court in b. C. Chaturuedi vs. Union of India wherein it was held as under, issued the aforementioned directions:"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/tribunal. In Union of India vs. H. C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364) this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclus