M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 12.7.2007 (P-25), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal) dismissing the Original Application filed by the applicant-petitioner. Before the Tribunal the applicant-petitioner has challenged orders dated 5.9.2006 and 27.10.2006 (P-20 & P-21) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority respectively inflicting upon him the punishment of Censure.

2. On 18.5.2005, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, the CCS Rules) was served upon the applicant-petitioner with the allegation that while holding the charge of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar, he had processed the case of one Dr. Atul Kapoor for search and prepared an appraisal report. He failed to make a mention in the appraisal report about the search of one locker No. 2998 in Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, and recovery of jewellery from the said locker, which was in the name of Smt. Anita Kapoor and her brother. Eventually it was found that due to aforesaid laxity on the part of the applicant-petitioner block assessment in the case of Smt. Anita Kapoor could not be made, which resulted in releasing of the seized jewellery. In this manner, revenue loss has occurred.

3. In his reply the applicant-petitioner admitted the factum of having prepared the appraisal report in the said case, which was forwarded by him to the D.I.T. (Investigation), Ludhiana, on 24.8.1998 for approval. The explanation tendered by the applicant- petitioner was that the jewellery was seized by the Investigation Wing, Delhi and till the date of making of the appraisal report neither the file was handed over to him nor was any official information sent to him. In the departmental inquiry, the contention raised by the applicant-petitioner was not accepted holding him guilty on the basis of un-con- troverted fact that he had failed to mention the details regarding the seizure of locker in Delhi in his appraisal report. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose a minor penalty upon the applicant-petitioner and the matter was referred to the Union Public Service Commission (for brevity, the Commission) for seeking statutory advise, which was received on 5.9.2006.

4. The following issues were considered by the Commission, as is evident from the communication dated 5.9.2006 (P-20):-

"(i) CO. had to hand over charge and leave for Patna at short notice to take up an important assignment there;

(ii) CO. had informed his successor about the search of the locker in Delhi and the fact that the file pertaining to the search had not yet been received.

(iii) C.O.s successor followed it up with DIT (Inv) Delhi with some difficulty finally succeeded in getting the file pertaining to the search.

(iv) All the senior officers dealing with the case were fully aware of the search of the locker at Delhi.

(v) CO. had recorded that case of Anita Kapoor should also be investigated.

(vi) The jewellery seized from the Delhi locker was subsequently found to be owned by the HUF of which Anita Kapoors husband Inderjit Kapoor was the Karta and this jewellery had been declared in the wealth tax returns of the HUF regularly from 1987-88 onwards;

(vii) The jewellery in question was duly examined in the course of assessment of the Group and the version of the assessee Group in respect of the jewellery in question was accepted by the Department; and

(viii) The release order issued by CIT clearly said that this jewellery was an explained asset."

5. The Commission opined that though there was no loss caused to the revenue and there was no suppression of information on the part of the applicant-petitioner. However, it has been concluded that there was a technical flaw on the part of the applicant- petitioner because he did not mention abou