Judgment :- K. Kannan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.1 2. The writ petition has been filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 20.7.2007 in O.A.NO.611 of 2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal of Madras Bench. An application had been filed by the first respondent herein challenging the order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication in Order No.8-8/2000-Vig.II dated 26. 2006 imposing a minor penalty of reduction of pay by one stage without accumulative effect. The Tribunal quashed the penalty awarded to the applicant and the Union of India challenges the same by means of this writ petition. .3. The gravamen of the charge was that the petitioner during his tenure of office as Director of Microwave Project, Bhuvaneshwar had committed gross irregularities by enhancing the monthly drawing limit of the DET, Jeypore, from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.40 lakhs that had enabled in the purchase of CI pipes from a private firm viz., M/s Lipika Enterprises without verifying the details of the purchases resulting in avoidable expenditure of Rs.65 lakhs. The charge had been found as partly proved in the sense that there was no material on record on the basis of which the applicant had come to the conclusion that the monthly drawing limit needed to be raised. But, there was no charge against the applicant that he had approved of any purchase of items which were not required or he had sanctioned any expenditure for that purpose. 4. The petitioner successfully contended before the Central Administrative Tribunal that the order imposing the penalty did not specify what specific financial rule had been violated while enhancing the monthly drawing limit. The increased drawing limit had been used only to speed up a languishing project and there was no allegation of any malafide or collusion. A decision taken on the basis of "trust" without any malafides could not be considered as misconduct merely because some junior officials took unfair advantage of it. The Tribunal also found that a copy of the UPSCs advice favouring the punishment had not been given to the applicant and therefore the action of the disciplinary authority was vitiated on that ground also. 5. The Tribunal also found that a copy of the UPSCs advice favouring the punishment had not been given to the applicant and therefore the action of the disciplinary authority was vitiated on that ground also. 5. It is contended before us by the counsel appearing for the Union that the Tribunal was erroneous in its finding that there had been no positive evidence against the petitioner. He also contended that there was no need to communicate the decision of the UPSC and the finding to that fact as vitiating the punishment was against law laid down by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in (2007(4) SCC 564) in Union of India and another Vs. T.V.Patel. .6. We have no difficulty in upholding the contention of the petitioner that one part of the reasoning of the Tribunal that the decision of UPSC ought to have been communicated to the delinquent was erroneous and it is squarely covered by the said decision. The said decision itself referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court where the law has been settled as early as in the year 1957 by the Constitutional Bench in the case in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava reported in (1958 SCR 553) it has been held that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution are not mandatory and they do not confer any rights on the public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC (emphasis supplied) if any does not afford the delinquent government servant, a cause of action in a court of law. The point has been so held also in subsequent decisions in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad Vs. V. Karunakar reported in ( 1993(4) SCC 727 ) which has been referred to above in Union of India and another Vs. T.V. Patel. 7. However, the decision of the Tribunal is well reasoned and it has set aside the order of the authority on the ground that there had been no definite evidence about any form of collusion or malafide between the applicant and the DET and it was only the latter who had actually made the irregular purchases. 8. T.V. Patel. 7. However, the decision of the Tribunal is well reasoned and it has set aside the order of the authority on the ground that there had been no definite evidence about any form of collusion or malafide between the applicant and the DET and it was only the latter who had actually made the irregular purchases. 8. Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the report of the enquiring authority with particular reference to the fact that the applicant had not made any enquiry regarding the nature of expenditure likely to be incurred whether budget provision was there, etc. He also points out to the fact that the files did not reflect that there was any telephonic conversation approving the enhancment of the drawing limits. It is contended that therefore he was directly responsible for the purchase of DET, Jaypore and the resulting loss that arose from irregular exercise of the power. The enquiring authority has also referred to the fact that even in the file nothing had been recorded about the progress of work or the likelihood of expenditure to be incurred etc., while exercising the drawing limit. These findings according to the learned counsel for the petitioner would betray the incorrect inference made by the Tribunal that the enquiry officers finding was not based on any positive evidence. .9. While countering the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent contended that as a matter of fact, there was actually an increase in the drawing limit as sanctioned by the delinquent officer by immediate successor, which would vindicate the respondents action. The Tribunal has also found that if the applicant had been unjustified in increasing the monthly drawing limit, his successor who came in January, 1992 would have actually reduced it, instead he maintained the limit up to March, 1992 and subsequently increased up to Rs.60 lakhs. The finding that the Tribunal has been on proper reasoning based on documents and appreciation of evidence brought out of records. We find nothing perverse or illegal about the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. We see no scope for interference. In our view, the Tribunal was correct in observing that there had been indeed no positive evidence of complicity of the delinquent officer with DET in making the irregular purchases. 10. We find nothing perverse or illegal about the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. We see no scope for interference. In our view, the Tribunal was correct in observing that there had been indeed no positive evidence of complicity of the delinquent officer with DET in making the irregular purchases. 10. Under the circumstances, we affirm the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.622 of 2006 exculpating the 1st respondent herein and dismiss the writ petition. No costs.