JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dismissing Original Application No. 5 of 1993 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.11.1990, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment for two years with cumulative effect and also the order dated 06.04.1992 treating the period of suspension as 'period of suspension for the purposes of payment of salary during the said period'. 2. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of six charges, some of them includes submission of false bills, keeping the bills pending for longer period etc. Out of these six charges, according to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, charge Nos. 1 and 2 have been held to be partly proved by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, upholding the punishment imposed, the Original Application has been dismissed. Paragraphs Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal being relevant are reproduced below; "15. I then went through the factual aspect of the matter. I found to have been observed and held by the Enquiry Officer that, financial irregularities were committed by the applicant, and they were sufficiently established. It was, as such, a case of sufficient evidence against the applicant. It would be most unjust for this Tribunal to sit in appeal over the said order and to reappreciate the evidence of the witnesses, and to record the contrary findings. When there is a case of some evidence, as per the rule of law, the Tribunal shall be slow to interfere in such order. 16. After making the necessary assessment of the matter and after appreciating it, I have to come to the conclusion that, the applicant has no case to challenge the impugned orders. The O.A deserves to be dismissed. I, therefore, proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The present O.A is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs". 3. It is urged by Shri Marpakwar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there is an error apparent on the face of record in recording the finding by the Tribunal that the financial irregularities were committed by the applicant and those were established. 3. It is urged by Shri Marpakwar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there is an error apparent on the face of record in recording the finding by the Tribunal that the financial irregularities were committed by the applicant and those were established. According to him, the enquiry report itself shows that the charges have not been established and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that it was required to reappreciate the evidence which is not the function of the Tribunal. 4. Charge No.1 states that the petitioner while working as Deputy Engineer in Groundwater Survey and Development Agency, he has submitted 78 doubtful bills of Rs.75,291.20 in respect of the purchases and repairs of the vehicles during the period from October, 1984 to June, 1985. The Enquiry Officer records a specific finding in Paragraph No.32 that the bills submitted were not false, bogus or doubtful and there is no evidence led to establish such charge. It also holds that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner intentionally with a view to deceit the Department produced the bogus bills. The Enquiry Officer, however, found that there was irregularity in maintenance of record. However, we do not find that any such charge was framed against the petitioner. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in holding that such charge was proved against the petitioner. 5. The Charge No.2 which is also alleged to be partly proved is in respect of unauthorized purchases of electric pumps and coolers costing Rs. 82,411/from the unauthorized local dealers and 18 bills were kept pending, which is the deceit practiced upon the Zilla Parishad. The Enquiry Officer records a specific finding that the charge of producing false bills is not established and also there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has played fraud. The Enquiry Officer, however, holds that there was irregularity in maintenance of record. However, we do not find any such charge was framed or levelled on the petitioner. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in holding that such charge was proved. 6. In view of above, we are of the view that the order of punishment dated 07.11.1990 passed against the petitioner imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years with cumulative effect cannot be sustained. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in holding that such charge was proved. 6. In view of above, we are of the view that the order of punishment dated 07.11.1990 passed against the petitioner imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years with cumulative effect cannot be sustained. Similarly, the order dated 06.04.1992 passed treating the period of suspension as the 'period of suspension for the purposes of payment of salary' also cannot be sustained. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the Original Application No.5 of 1993. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits. 7. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the order 07.11.1990 imposing punishment upon the petitioner along with the order dated 06.04.1992 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as the 'period of suspension'. We also quash and set aside the order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner is restored to the position and he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the payment of arrears of increment and that of salary. The petitioner be paid all his dues within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.