Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The petitioner Ambika Prasad Sinha has filed the present petition aggrieved by the order of 30 July, 1999 by which his claim O.A. No. 551 of 1993 : Ambika Prasad Sinha V/s. Union of India & Ors. was rejected by the Tribunal. 2. The back ground of the case, as was taken to the Tribunal, was an excuse virtually whittling the departmental action against the petitioner. The department is the department of Tele-communication. The action against the petitioner was that he was suspended. Thereafter, one increment was stopped and the suspension was revoked. The Tribunal felt that it ought not to interfere with the matter. 3. On this petition, if the High Court were merely have to a second opinion then there is no occasion to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. But, a government employee regard being had to the circumstances that he has faced a departmental inquiry; suspended during service; seen stoppage of increments and all that has been reduced to denial of one increment now, may amount to a lifetime stigma. The misdemeanour must be such that the action of the department must hold. A departmental inquiry could be about misappropriation, mis-representation or even insubordination or an act against the interest of the government. 4. In the present case, the Court feels that the departmental inquiry and penal action was stretched a bit too far. The Court will narrate the facts in brief. But, all this has happened primarily because the Tele-communication department was running a public utility service, and was doing so as a government department. If the matter had been seen business like it is unlikely that an employee of the tele-communication department would have had to bear the brunt of muscle flexing applicant- subscribers. The one who got away is the person who took the prize with him and is not a party to the proceedings. This person who got away is perhaps having the last laugh. In the circumstances, a short resume of the facts is necessary. 5. One Magandeo Narain Singh had applied for a telephone connection in 1986. In the normal course, regard being had to the circumstances, 17 years ago telephone connections were not easy to come by. There were long queues and had red tape hurdles and practices within the department jumped the rules. 5. One Magandeo Narain Singh had applied for a telephone connection in 1986. In the normal course, regard being had to the circumstances, 17 years ago telephone connections were not easy to come by. There were long queues and had red tape hurdles and practices within the department jumped the rules. The subscribers intending to procure a telephone connection, thus, were also taking recourse to short cuts. Magandeo Narain Singh was one of such person. In the normal course he would not have received a telephone connection. Thus, he arranged to put himself in a priority list. He declared to the telephone department that he was a press man and was entitled to a telephone connection as is normally given to the media persons. He declared that he works for a leading Hindi newspaper of Bihar, Aryavart. In his application form he declared himself as the Principal Correspondent. Thereafter, he was putting pressure within the department that he be placed into a special category. The petitioner was at that time an Inspector (Defaulter) in the office of the District Manager, Telephone, Patna. Upon verification it was found that this person applying for a telephone connection was doing so personally and not in the name of the organisation or the company which published the daily news paper Aryavart. In the circumstances, a note had been put by the petitioner that there is misrepresentation in the application by the person who was seeking a priority telephone connection. The connection was not for the newspaper or on behalf of the newspaper but entirely private and personal to a person who made the application. 6. A delay in granting the connection saw a case before the District Consumers Forum. Within the department the higher officers did not permit an inquiry whether a priority connection could be made or not. The files were left without decision. There was a delay in providing a telephone connection to Magandeo Narain Singh. He went to the Consumers Forum with a complaint. The District Consumers Forum, thus, directed the Department that the subscriber be provided with a telephone forthwith and further awarded a cost of Rs. 5000/- against the telephone department payable otherwise by the District Manager, Telephone. Now this led to a complication. He went to the Consumers Forum with a complaint. The District Consumers Forum, thus, directed the Department that the subscriber be provided with a telephone forthwith and further awarded a cost of Rs. 5000/- against the telephone department payable otherwise by the District Manager, Telephone. Now this led to a complication. As the department had been saddled with costs as damages, the blame was put upon the petitioner that he had caused the delay occasioning a stricture from the District Consumer Forum. The tele-communication department did not file an appeal against the order of the District Consumers Forum, and permitted the order to become final. Before the Consumers Forum the matters were not examined in detail whether the subscriber who complained of delay in providing a telephone had made a misrepresentation and was not entitled to a telephone connection on a priority. 7. The order of the District Consumers Forum was the cause for the departmental inquiry. The petitioner was suspended. Thereafter the suspension was revoked but given punishment to forego five incremeres. Subsequently, when the matters were examined and re-examined within the department and thereafter on appeal, it was found that the petitioner had received too harsh a punishment. The punishment in departmental proceedings was reduced to a loss of one increment without cumulative effect. Thus, from the record itself, it is clear that some mistake had happened somewhere which was not taken into account between the disciplinary and the appellate authority. Otherwise, on their own they would not be reducing the punishment earlier awarded to the petitioner. 8. After this the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a relief that the record be certified, in effect, that he was innocent of the charges which were made against him and, further, the balance of the punishment which remained, whatever it might be, be struck off also. The Tribunal declined the request of the petitioner. Thus, the present petition. 9. The Additional Standing Counsel, Central Government did not make an issue and acknowledged that in the disciplinary and appellate proceedings, the punishments awarded were being reduced. He acknowledged that all these matters were initiated after a direction was issued by the District Consumers Forum on the subscribers claim that he was entitled to a connection out of turn. 9. The Additional Standing Counsel, Central Government did not make an issue and acknowledged that in the disciplinary and appellate proceedings, the punishments awarded were being reduced. He acknowledged that all these matters were initiated after a direction was issued by the District Consumers Forum on the subscribers claim that he was entitled to a connection out of turn. The inquiry within the department that there had been a misrepresentation in extracting a connection out of turn was suppressed. If the correct facts had been given by the subscriber Magandeo Narain Singh, then the Additional Standing Counsel acknowledged that this subscriber would not receive a connection at all in the category for which he applied. Then, a question arises what sin has the petitioner committed to have received so much punishment? 10. The fact that the subscriber misrepresented in his application to seek a priority connection as a media and a pressman for a particular newspaper is a matter of record. This subscriber had misled the department that he was entitled to a priority connection on behalf of a newspaper, normally given to a Journalist. It is on record that he was seeking a status as a journalist upon a declaration that he was working in the newspaper Aryavart. The telephone department records were showing that this newspaper was in default of arrears. The petitioner as an Inspector with the telephone department had merely recorded that no defaulter of the department who was in arrears of telephone revenues should be given a connection unless the arrears are paid up. 11. Further, before the District Consumers Forum the petitioner Ambika Prasad Sinha was not a party. Then, the Tribunal itself notices the fact that the subscriber Magandeo Narain Singh was at best a correspondent of M/s. Newspapers and Publications Ltd. which published Aryavart and did not have any direct relationship as an employee of this corporate body. This aspect is noticed and is writ large in the order of the Tribunal. Then there are some aspects which need to be noticed by this Court. These are: (a) to explain the entire situation the petitioner sought a personal hearing before the appellate authority. This personal hearing was denied to him. This aspect is noticed in the order of the Tribunal in paragraph 14. Then there are some aspects which need to be noticed by this Court. These are: (a) to explain the entire situation the petitioner sought a personal hearing before the appellate authority. This personal hearing was denied to him. This aspect is noticed in the order of the Tribunal in paragraph 14. (b) the Tribunal records that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was too harsh and it further records" while the then Commercial Officer and A.Q.- TR, who were fully responsible for this act, somehow, managed and got scort (sic) free." The Tribunal also notices that "the applicant had put a long dedicated unblemished service career........." 12. With this background that the petitioner had an unblemished record and that there were many high ups in the department who had perhaps facilitated the sanction of an irregular connection to Magandeo Narain Singh; that the latter had misrepresented the claim of a priority as a journalist when otherwise he was not entitled to; that the claim that he was an employee of the corporate body which was a defaulter, and on all these aspects a lid could not be put upon the petitioners report. It was an inspectors report on audit and finances. The issue is not that the petitioner was being difficult but the fact that within the department someone was granting a favour to the subscriber to provide a connection out of turn. This subscriber claimed to be an agent or employed by a Principal who had telephone bill arrears. The petitioner earned the wrath of the high officials by placing these matters on record. 13. The plain question is that if the departmental proceeding and the appeal proceeding have almost reduced the punishment which they had awarded to the petitioner and the Tribunal records that senior officials have been let off, then, clearly, there is an error in the order of the Tribunal in permitting a subordinate to be flogged when he committed no error. In the circumstances, stoppage of one increment which was awarded as a punishment, notwithstanding whether it had or did not have a cumulative effect, if permitted to remain would cast a stigma on the petitioners career. Clearly, the Tribunal has committed an error that having noticed the correct facts it permitted the minor punishment to remain on record. In the circumstances, stoppage of one increment which was awarded as a punishment, notwithstanding whether it had or did not have a cumulative effect, if permitted to remain would cast a stigma on the petitioners career. Clearly, the Tribunal has committed an error that having noticed the correct facts it permitted the minor punishment to remain on record. Thus, the order of the Tribunal dated 30 July, 1999 stands quashed under a writ of certiorari. 14. Regard being had to the circumstances of the disciplinary inquiry which was taken out against the petitioner, the inquiry stands quashed and consigned as such. The petitioner would be entitled to all benefits of service as if the disciplinary inquiry had not been taken out. 15. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 16 I agree.