Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Central Administrative Tribunal vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2013
1 O.A. No. 68/2013 & O.A. No. 69/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI O.A. Nos. 68/2013 & 69/2013 Date of decision : July 30, 2013 Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Basheer, Member (J) Hon'ble Shri R.C. Joshi, Member (A) Shankar Narayan Lambate, R/o. Plot No. 145, Vinkar Vasahat, Manewada Ring Road, Nagpur ... Applicant in O.A. No. 68/2013 Lokuram Shrawan Paunikar, R/o. LIG-165, Vinkar Colony, Manewada Ring Road, Nagpur ... Applicant in O.A. No. 69/2013 (By Advocate S.D. Khati) Versus 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Department of Post, Dak Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 001 2. The Director of Accounts (Postal) Department of Post, Maharashtra Circle, General Post Office Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ... Respondents (By Advocates S/Shri R.R. Shetty, S.G. Pillai and Smt. H.P. Shah) Order (Oral) Per : Justice A.K. Basheer, Member (J)
These two Original Applications are being disposed of through this common order since an identical issue is involved in them.
2O.A. No. 68/2013 & O.A. No. 69/2013
2. Applicants in the above two cases are facing Disciplinary Proceedings pursuant to Memorandum of Chargesheet issued to them. Copies of chargesheets in the two cases are on record as Annexure A-1. The gist of the charge against the applicants is that they had managed to obtain employment in the Postal Department on the basis of a false claim that they belonged to Schedule Tribe namely Halba and later when they were directed to produce the Original Caste Certificate, they had failed to do so. Be that as it may, in the nature of the order that we propose to pass it is not necessary to refer to or deal with the imputation of charges levelled against them elaborately.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently contended before us that in view of the settled legal position, the respondents are not justified in proceeding against the applicants. He has invited our attention to some of the judgements on the point. However, Shri R.R. Shetty, who appears for the respondents has also placed reliance on some of the judgements rendered by their lordships of the Supreme Court. But, we refrain from dealing with the rival submissions for the following reasons.
4. When these two cases are taken up for consideration today, it is brought to our notice that the Inquiry Officer had already submitted his report 3 O.A. No. 68/2013 & O.A. No. 69/2013 dated March 18, 2013 before the Disciplinary Authority and that the applicants have filed their written representations against the findings in the Inquiry Report. In that view of the matter we do not find any reason to retain these Original Applications on the file of this Tribunal any more. The Disciplinary Authority shall take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representations, if any, submitted by the applicants.
5. We make it clear that we have not considered the merit or demerit of any of the contentions raised by the applicants in these Original Applications. All the said contentions are left open.
4. Original Applications are closed. (R.C. Joshi) (Justice A.K Basheer) Member (A) Member (J) sc/n.