O R D E R (ORAL)

Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)

This Review Application has been filed by the respondents in OA No.1214/2011 which was decided on 02.04.2013. The operative part of the said order reads thus :-

“12. In view of the above position, this OA is allowed. Consequently, as prayed for by the Applicant, we direct the Respondents to regularize the period of put off duty as spent on duty for all purposes excluding payment of arrears of Time Related Continuity Allowance. Further, we quash and set aside the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 29.03.2008 removing the Applicant from service and the Annexure A-2 order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.03.2010 rejecting his appeal with all consequential benefits. The Respondents shall, therefore, reinstate the Applicant in service, forthwith from the date he was put off duty with continuity in service. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ”

2. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon‟ble High Court vide WP(C) No.6504/2013 and the learned counsel for petitioner (respondents in the OA) submitted before the High Court that para 5.4 of the counter affidavit in the aforesaid OA filed by the writ petitioners did not find reflection in the impugned order passed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Tribunal to point out that the aforesaid factual aspect.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for review applicants as well as review respondent (applicant in the OA). For the sake of convenience, we reproduce para 5.4 of the OA, which reads thus :-

“5.4 That, the applicant has been denied the reasonable opportunity to defend his case. He submitted a list of 15 additional documents to the Inquiry Officer vide his application dated 20-01-04 which were considered very material and relevant for the purpose of his defence. The Inquiry Officer considered the said application in the proceedings held on 20/01-04 and made the following observations/ orders :-

“Additional documents mentioned at Sl. No.1 to 15 are found relevant to the case. The SSPOs, Delhi North Dn. Delhi-110054 (Disciplinary Authority) being the custodian of the additional documents is requested to provide in original a/w two set of Photo Copies, through P.O. on the next date of hearing.”

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN APPLICATION DATED 20-01-04 : -----

1. Statement/report of Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta ASPOs I & VO/O CPMG Delhi-Relevancy: for effective Cross examination., 2. Statement/ report of Sh. A.L. Gupta: Relevancy- for effective cross examination., 3. Statement/ report of Sh. Vakil Singh: Relevancy for effective cross examination.

4. Statement/ report of Sh. M.R. Nega: Relevancy- for effective cross examination.

5. Statement/ report of Sh. Om Chand Mangal:

Relevancy for effective cross examination., 6. Statement/ report of Sh. Shiv Shankar Gaur :

Relevancy for effective cross examination., 7. Written orders regarding investigation of the case nominating/ appointing the investigator: Relevancy- to see/saw that investigations have not been conducted by the authority investigator., 8. Investigation report of the authorised investigator:

Relevancy- to see & saw that the investigator did not find any irregularity in my work and the chargesheet is contradictory to the authorised report., 9. Unauthorised investigation report: Relevancy- to see & saw the contradictions in report viz-a-viz chargesheet & to prove that the case made out against me is false and fabricated., 10. Attendance register of B.O. Auchandi for the month of Feb.93 to Nov-93: Relevancy- to see & saw whether I was on duty on the dates mentioned in the chargesheet., 11. Inspection report carried out by ASPO/SSPOs during the Feb-93 to Dec-93: Relevancy- to prove that the case made out against me is false and fabricated.

12. Visit report of Mail Overseer Bawana for th