PRADEEP KANT, RITU RAJ AWASTHI
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SATYENDRA KUMAR SAHAI – Respondent
By the Court.—Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri Abdul Moin.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Anil Srivastava, Sri Abdul Moin for the respondents and perused the record.
3. With the consent of the parties’ counsel, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
4. The respondent, a Booking Clerk in the Railways, who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of misappropriation of government funds, has been inflicted the punishment of removal from service, with recovery of an amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs.
5. Against the order of punishment, the respondent preferred the Original Application No. 206 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 2.2.2003 with a direction that the pending enquiry be completed within a period of four months.
6. The enquiry could be completed in a little period of more than four months but less than five months. The punishment order became the subject matter of challenge in the present Original Application, in which the punishment order has been set aside by the Tribunal mainly on the following two counts :
(i) the order of punishment was not pa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.