IMPORTANT POINT
The court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and cannot remand the matter for considering a lesser penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore/most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ of certiorari as also writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions and

(A) set aside the impugned order dated 27.9.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. New Delhi in OA No.3010/2015;

(B) set aside (1) order dated 13.12.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalties of (i) compulsory retirement, and (ii) recovery of Rs.74,269, (2) order dated 17.5.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority converting penalty 'compulsory retirement to 'withholding of future promotion for 5years' and treating the period from 13.12.2004 to 17.5.2005 as dies non, while maintaining the penalty of recovery, and (3) order dated 27.8.2014, on petitioner's Revision, statedly passed by the "Competent Authority" deciding 'not to overturn the earlier decision taken in the matter" as communicated to the petitioner by Under Secretary of the respondent, all being based on illegal and vitiated Inquiry Report;

(C) grant all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion(s) by conducting review DPCs, arrears of salary and all other benefits as admissible to the petitioner by virtue of his service;

(D) award cost; and may also

(E) pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may find in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent."

2. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order dated September 27, 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.3010/2015 ('OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner herein.

3. The challenge of the petitioner before the Tribunal was with regard to the order dated December 13, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, order dated May 17, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority imposing penalty of withholding of future promotion for five years and treating the period from December 13, 2004 to May 17, 2005 as dies non and the order dated August 27, 2014 passed by the Revisional Authority under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

4. The Tribunal has dismissed the OA by stating in paragraphs 10 onwards as under:

"10. The charges against the applicant are in relation to the information furnished by him in the context of obtaining the CGHS Token Card. An employee of the government can include the name of his mother in the CGHS Card, if only the income of his father is below particular limits. In the concerned proforma, the applicant is said to have mentioned that the income of this father is less than Rs.1500/- per month. However, on verification it emerged that the father of the applicant was receiving much more.

11. After the charge sheet was issued, the applicant submitted his explanation and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed. In the inquiry, the applicant admitted the mistake on his part. However, he pleaded that the reason for his ignorance about the actual income was that he was not visiting his native place, and was not conversant with the relevant facts. Before the Inquiry Officer, he offered to refund the amount which was claimed by him towards reimbursement. The Disciplinary Authority took these aspects into account, and after extensive discussion, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement.

12. The Appellate Authority passed order through Memorandum dated 17.05.2005. The plea of the applicant that it is bereft of reasons is indeed, correct. The Memorandum reads as under:-

"Memorandum

Subject: Appeal to the Chief Election Commissioner of India under Rule 23 (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 filed by Shri Kumar Rajeev, Assistant in the Election Commission of India.

On an appeal filed by Shri Kumar Rajeev, Assistant in the Election Commissio