JUDGMENT Heard Mr.Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Anand Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India as well as Mr.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 1 March 2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.418 of 2010. The respondent had filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the order dated 16 September 2010 re-fixing the respondent's salary as also the recovery order dated 22.11.2010 alongwith some other reliefs. The learned Tribunal has proceeded to examine the matter, but without giving any finding on the merit of the case. It appears that the learned Tribunal was brought to the notice that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent vide memorandum dated 21 November 2008 was withdrawn and articles of charges contained therein were dropped being not proved. The Tribunal held that nothing survives to be adjudicated upon as impugned order dated 16 September 2010 loses its significance, therefore, it issued direction to the effect that the recovered amount if any shall be refunded within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of the order is produced. Mr.Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the departmental proceeding initiated against the respondent, pursuant to the charge memo dated 21.11.2008, was completely a different proceeding to the proceeding initiated for recovery of amount paid to the respondent in excess to admissible amount, therefore, both the proceedings could not be attached together. In so far as the recovery of payments made to the respondent in excess to admissible amount is concerned, that could have been examined no doubt in the eye of law laid down by the Supreme Court, but certainly that requires some observations/determination by the Tribunal, therefore, both the proceedings could not be intermingled to give a common result to closure of proceeding of recovery. In reply Mr. Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that though the charges levelled against the respondent could not be proved yet the inquiry officer placed the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority, who in turn had accepted it as such vide order dated 7 January 2015, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal. In reply Mr. Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that though the charges levelled against the respondent could not be proved yet the inquiry officer placed the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority, who in turn had accepted it as such vide order dated 7 January 2015, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal. In so far as the recovery of amount which has been termed as excess to the admissible amount is concerned, that has already been protected by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. versu Rafiq Masih (Whitel Washer) etc., 2014 (8) SCC 883 , therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to proceed for this purpose. Thus the learned Tribunal has rightly closed the proceedings of recovery. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the articles of charges levelled against the respondent and found that the first charge against the respondent was that he did not inform the office that he had received notice Pay, Earned Leave Encashment, Gratuity etc. from his parent office and his services had been retrenched from the parent Department. Thus he was charged that he deliberately suppressed the facts and managed to obtain absorption in this CGIT-cum-Labour Court on the post of Personal Assistant. The second charge was that he was assigned the work of keeping and safe custody/maintenance of personal files & service book of self and staff, but he did not present the letters containing information about his retrenchment. He deliberately suppressed the facts and secured his absorption w.e.f. 1.4.2000; and in doing so he violated the provisions contained in the Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. We have also perused the order dated 16 September 2010 of pay fixation and recovery order dated 22 November 2010, which reveal that since the first respondent had been retrenched in his parent department and on retrenchment he received all terminal benefits including gratuity etc. We have also perused the order dated 16 September 2010 of pay fixation and recovery order dated 22 November 2010, which reveal that since the first respondent had been retrenched in his parent department and on retrenchment he received all terminal benefits including gratuity etc. before absorption in CGIT, his services were treated as fresh appointed in CGIT on the date of his absorption, therefore, he was entitled to be placed at the minimum of the pay scale of the Personal Assistant on the date of his absorption in CGIT, Lucknow, but he continued to get the same very scale instead of getting the minimum pay scale, which was later on detected and an order of recovery was issued to recover the amount paid to him in excess, which was determined as a sum of Rs.5,30,773/- by means of recovery order dated 22 November 2010. Thus the facts of both the proceedings i.e. departmental proceedings as well as proceeding of recovery of payment made to him in excess are altogether different without having any connection to each other. That apart, trenching upon one matter to another to some extent does not create hurdle in the way of other proceedings, on account of which we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed error in dropping the proceeding of the original Application No.418 of 2010 on the pretext that the articles of charges as well as the disciplinary proceedings were dropped, whereas the matter of recovery of excess payment requires its determination on merit by the Tribunal, therefore, we hereby quash the order impugned dated 1 March 2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and restore the Original Application to the record of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for its decision on merit. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.