K. Kannan, J

Heard Mr. S. Sadasharam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

Summary of facts:

2. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.59 of 1996 challenging the order passed by the second respondent viz. the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India dated 23. 1995.

By the impugned order, the order of the disciplinary authority had been confirmed. The punishment meted out to the petitioner was reduction of pay by three stages with effect from the date of passing of the order. It was further ordered that increments of pay would not be earned during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Since the enquiry yielded to a finding of misconduct, the period of suspension from 16. 1991 to 5. 1994 was not to be treated as duty for any purpose. The past services, before suspension would not further be forfeited.

Enumeration of alleged misconduct by charges:

3. The order was pursuant to the charge memo issued on 20.8.1991.