JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2002 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 771 of 1999 instituted by late K.D. Deshpande questioning his termination of services by order dated 16th January, 1997.

3. Late K.D. Deshpande was served with the charge-sheet dated 12th October, 1989 enlisting four charges against him. The first investigating officer who enquired into charges submitted a report that late K.D.Deshpande was not at all co-operative and therefore, she was unable to record any findings on the charges levelled. In the second bout of inquiry, the evidence was led and the inquiry officer in the inquiry report dated 4th November, 1996 held the charges levelled against late K.D. Deshpande, as proved. Upon compliance with principles of natural justice, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon late K.D. Deshpande on 16th January, 1997. Late K.D. Deshpande's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 14th January, 1999. Mr. Deshpande's revision/revision petitions also did not meet with any success. Therefore, Mr. K.D. Deshpande instituted O.A. No. 771 of 1999 before the CAT which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th January, 2002. Hence, the present petition.

4. Mr. S.N. Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that from out of four Articles of charge framed against Mr. K.D. Deshpande, Article - I, which relates to assets disproportionate to his known source of income was the most serious. This charge had been held as only partly proved by the inquiry officer. However, the CAT, by the impugned judgment and order has held that there was absolutely no material for proof of such a charge and accordingly, set aside the findings insofar as Article - I of the charge-sheet is concerned. Mr. Pillai submits that rest of the three charges were minor and in any case, were not proved on basis of legal evidence. Mr. Pillai submits that even assuming that rest of the charges are to be held as proved, as held by the CAT, penalty of dismissal from service for such charges was grossly disproportionate and therefore, ought to have shocked conscience of the CAT as well as this court. On this ground, Mr. Pillai submits that the impugned order made by the MAT warrants interference.

5. Mr. Pillai submits that Articles I and II of the charge-sheet are inter related. Mr. Pillai submits that late Mr. K.D. Deshpande had admitted rendering some assistance to his wife who had purchased family property from relatives. On basis of such an admission, neither the inquiry officer nor the CAT was entitled to hold that any Benami property had been purchased by late K.D. Deshpande in his wife's name or that late K.D. Deshpande had indulged in any business activity with a profit motive thereby violating Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Mr. Pillai emphasizes that Articles - I and II of the charge-sheet are interrelated. He submits that since the CAT has categorically ruled that Article I of the charge-sheet could not be held as proved, the fate of Article-II of the charge-sheet can be no different. He submits that since this aspect has been ignored by the CAT, the impugned judgment and order warrants interference.

6. Mr. Pillai submits that the charges like failure to intimate about purchase of moveable or immoveable property to the department, are minor charges and even assuming that the same can be said to be proved, only, a minor penalty could have imposed upon late K.D. Deshpande. Mr. Pillai submits that the penalty of dismissal is, grossly disproportionate and should shock the conscience. Mr. Pillai submits that on these grounds, the impugned judgment and order made by the CAT warrants interference.

7. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the CAT was not at all justified in reassessing the material on record and held that Article-I of