Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1074 (KAR)

Union of India v. C. G. Prabhu

2015-09-09

G.NARENDAR, N.KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : N. Kumar, J. These writ petitions are filed by the Union of India, seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6-7-2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 617 of 2014 and for confirmation of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. The respondent, who was working as an Inspector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Devanahalli, Bangalore at the relevant point of time, was accused of act of infidelity, unfaithfulness, dishonesty and untrustworthiness amounting to misconduct under Rule 3(1) read with explanation of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. An enquiry was held. He participated in the said enquiry. The enquiry authority found him guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. Accepting the said report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of his compulsory retirement. The appeal preferred by the respondent has met with the same fate. It is thereafter, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal without referring to the facts of the case, the charges levelled against him and as philosophically noted about the human relationship and was of the view that the alleged misconduct has not in anyway tainted the service of the respondent with the Government and therefore set aside the order of punishment of compulsory retirement and restored him into service with 50% back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India is before this Court. 4. Rule was issued and interim stay was granted. 5. Today, the respondent has entered appearance and filed an application to vacate the interim order of stay. However, learned Counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the case on facts and in accordance with law as laid down by the Apex Court without resorting to philosophy. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I.A. No. 1/15 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly rejected.