Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Though the case has been called out in the revised list, but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 8th March, 2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application NO. 245 of 2004, filed by the respondent No. 1-Rajesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application, setting aside the order of termination, and directed the petitioners to take back the respondent in service with the further direction that the respondent would be entitled for the pay and allowance for the period during which he remained out of service, with the increments due and his seniority will also remain intact.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondent, while he was posted as Postman, at Mahmoorganj, Varanasi, has been charged that he paid the money against four money orders to one Dhirendra Singh, without verifying his identity. An enquiry has bee