JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.9.2005, passed in the Original Application No. 256 of 2005 (in short "OA") (Sati Nath Khan v. Union of India and others) filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (in short "Tribunal") under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

3. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 13.9.2005 considered the issue related to disagreement memo issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the applicant-respondent through the letter dated 8.6.2004 in relation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report submitted by him vide letter dated 16.4.2003. The Tribunal while partly allowing the OA considered the disagreement memo in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another; (1999) 7 SCC 739. The Tribunal while partly allowing the OA recorded the specific observation, which reads as under:

"In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Yogi Nath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1999 (7) SC 62, if before disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority has not followed the due process of law it vitiates the order of punishment. Non following the due process and denial of reasonable opportunity has caused prejudice to applicant and is infraction to the principle of natural justice, which are inbuilt in the Rules if not specifically provided.

In the light of our taking a final view of the matter, the applicant has been denied opportunity to show-cause."

4. The Tribunal after interfering in the order of punishment imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, affirmed in the appeal, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Order of Appellate Authority, granted the liberty to the petitioners to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 13.9.2005 is quoted below for ready reference:

"In the light of the decision in Bagde case (supra) and the disagreement of the disciplinary authority with the enquiry officer, this O.A. is partly allowed on this issue. The order imposing the compulsory retirement as affirmed in appeal is set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the applicant in service. However, if so advised, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law. The intervening period shall be regulated as per rules and regulation on the subject. No costs."

5. Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.9.2005, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

6. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of the proper adjudication of the issue involved, which relate to "disagreement memo" as well as the present writ petition, are to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant-respondent vide charge-sheet dated 8.5.2002. At the time of issuance of charge-sheet, the applicant-respondent was working on the post of Reservation Clerk in the Northern Railway at Lucknow. Needless to say that the applicant-respondent prior to issuance of the charge-sheet dated 8.5.2002, was suspended vide order dated 18.10.2001. It appears from the charge-sheet that against the applicant-respondent, three charges were levelled. The same reads as under:

"(1) He defrauded the Rly. by manipulating in BPT No. 671646 as he had indicated Rs. 4410-00 passenger foil, whereas record foil showing amounting Rs. 107-00 only. Thus by fraudulently means he pocketed Rs. 4303-00.

(2) He intentionally mislead the requisition from on which he generated PNR No. 213-0435999 of zero amount against BPT No. 671646 which was manipulated by him.

(3) To cover-up his fraudulent activity, he has prepared a requisition form in the name of Rani Jha of 3050 d