JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. Subject matter of the writ petition is the order, dated 7th January, 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (for short, the Tribunal), in Original Application No.36/HP/2007, titled Lekh Ram vs. Union of India and others, whereby the Original Application filed by the Applicant (writ petitioner herein) was dismissed, (for short, the impugned order). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner (Original Applicant before the Tribunal) filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 3. Respondents-Department have filed the reply to the writ petition and have explained about the conduct of the petitioner during the period of his employment. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Facts of the case are that the writ petitioner Lekh Ram was facing charge-sheet on the ground that he had received Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification from one Ranjit Singh in order to ensure that his son would be recruited in the Army. The said Ranjit Singh made a complaint after noticing that despite making payment of Rs.6,000/-, his son was not appointed. The department, after receiving the complaint, suspended the writ petitioner on 16th August, 1999, which suspension order was revoked on 6th July, 2002. 6. Thereafter, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21st February, 2003, which was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal by filing Original Application i.e. OA No.558/HP/2003, was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to consider the question of getting the inquiry conducted from some independent agency, after due notice to the petitioner, and conclude the same within four months. It appears that Director Recruitment was appointed as inquiry officer, inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was also heard. 7. The petitioner was asked to engage a defence assistant, a dismissed employee was engaged by him, which was not as per the mandate of CCS (CCA) Rules and was given ample opportunity to engage defence assistant. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, the writ petitioner failed to engage the defence assistant. 8. The complainant i.e. Ranjit Singh appeared before the Inquiry Officer and admitted all the contents of his complaint, including the petitioner having received Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification. 9. The petitioner had virtually confessed his guilt by writing a letter of pardon and asked for mercy. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, the writ petitioner failed to engage the defence assistant. 8. The complainant i.e. Ranjit Singh appeared before the Inquiry Officer and admitted all the contents of his complaint, including the petitioner having received Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification. 9. The petitioner had virtually confessed his guilt by writing a letter of pardon and asked for mercy. The letter of pardon is reproduced in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. 10. The Inquiry Officer, after concluding the inquiry and examining the material, took a lenient view and punishment of reduction to lower stage was imposed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed, constraining the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by the medium of Original Application and seek quashment of both the orders, i.e. order of the Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority. 11. Respondents filed the reply and after examining the pleadings, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, vide the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. 12. The petitioner had denied the letter of pardon and specifically pleaded that it was managed. In order to determine the said issue, the petitioner was asked by the respondents to submit his finger prints so that the same could be compared and got verified. Despite three opportunities, the petitioner refused to give his finger prints, as has been discussed in detail in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. 13. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, the other attending circumstances, read with the statement of the complainant Ranjit Singh, which has not been shattered in his cross examination, and the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the impugned order is legal one. It is apt to record herein that no material was brought on record which could have been made the basis for holding that the complainant Ranjit Singh had made a false complaint. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is speaking one and needs no interference. 15. Having said so, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.