[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Shri R.C. Pandey vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved on: 12.11.2025
Delivered on: 16.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 34 of 2019
Shri R.C. Pandey ......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
And Others .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Per: Alok Mahra, J.
By means of present writ petition, the
petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash and set-aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 22.10.2018 (contained
as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) passed by
learned Tribunal, along with its effect and
operation also, after calling entire records from the
respondents and allow the Original Application in
toto with all consequential benefits, keeping in view
the facts highlighted in the body of the writ
petition."
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:-
3. The petitioner while working as Postal
Assistant in SBCO, Almora Head Office was transferred to
Haldwani on 27.04.2001 and joined his duties on
08.05.2001. One Sri M.C. Suyal, R.D. NSC while working
as Counter Assistant at Haldwani Head Office made
forged withdrawal in the month of January/February and
March, 2001. For the alleged act of Mr. M.C. Suyal,
certain employees of the department were issued
chagesheet namely (i) Shri M.C. Suyal (main offender), (ii)
Shri J.P. Joshi Supervisor/In charge (SBCO), Haldwani,
(iii) Shri Nandan Singh Bisht, Ledger clerk, (iv) Shri Prem
Joshi, Postal Assistant, (v) Smt. Ganga Rawat, Postal
Assistant (SBCO), (vi) Shri D.S. Rana Deputy Post Master,
(vii) Shri M.C. Gupta, Deputy Post Master (viii) R.C.
Pandey the applicant Postal Assistant (SBCO) and
departmental inquiry was conducted against them,
During inquiry Shri M.C. Suyal died in 2005.
4. Petitioner has pleaded that the Departmental
Authorities did not issue chargesheet to (i) Shri K.N.
Pandey, the concerned Deputy Post Master, Haldwani
during whose term, the fraud was committed, (ii) Shri
D.N. Belwal, In-charge (SBCO) and (iii) Shri Sangam Lal,
Deputy Post Master and they were allowed to retire and
no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. A
chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was
issued against the petitioner by the Senior
Superintendant of Post Offices, Nainital vide memo dated
29.11.2003 for violation of certain codified department
rules.
5. The Article of charges are reproduced as
hereunder:-
"Statement of articles of charges framed against shri
R.C. Pandey, PA SBCO Haldwani HO at present under
suspension
Article-1: That the said shri R.C.Pandey, while working
and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani H.O.
during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02., 11.2.02 to
13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03 it was noticed that
shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter Assistant
Haldwani HO made a forged withdrawal of Rs 41,670/-
on 4.1.2001 from Haldwani HO RD account No 60948,
but said shri RC Pandey failed to carry out the
checking of aforesaid forged withdrawal, which
facilitated said shri MC Suyal to commit huge fraud.
Thus he violated the provision of Rule 58 r/w Rule 34
and 11 of Postal Manual of SB control Pairing and
internal check organization. Third edition (corrected up
to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks
properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal
could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by
the Govt. would have certainly be averted.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by
his above acts and deeds not only violated the
provisions of aforesaid rules, but also exhibited lack of
devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of
a Govt. servant and thereby also violated the provisions
of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article 2: That the said shri R C Pandey, while working
and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO
during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.02.02 to
13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03, it was noticed that
shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter assistant
Haldwani HO made a forged withdrawal of Rs
83.340.00 on 23.3.2001 from Haldwani HO RD a/c No.
62364, but said shri R.C. Pandey failed to check the
above forged withdrawal properly which facilitated said
shri MC Suyal to commit fraud amounting Rs
83,340.00. Thus he violated the provisions of Rule 58
r/w rule 34 and 11 of Postal manual of SB control
pairing and Internal check organization third edition
(Corrected up to 1.12.1985). Had he exercised the
above checks properly, the fraud committed by said
shri MC Suyal could have been detected earlier and
loss sustained by the Govt. would have certainly be
averted.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by
his above acts & deeds not only violated the provisions
of aforesaid Rules, but also exhibited lack of devotion
to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
servant and thereby also violated the provisions of Rule
3(1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article 3:-That the said RC Pandey, while working and
discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO
during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to
13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03. it was noticed that
shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter assistant
Haldwani HO made a forged withdrawal of Rs
41,670.00 on 5.1.2001 from Haldwani HO RD account
No 60981. Further it was also noticed that the
withdrawal form dated 5.1.2001 for Rs 41,670.00 was
reflected in the voucher checking register but the same
was not found available in SBCO Haldwani HO during
the course of investation. Moreover it was not found
noted in the will follow register. Thus it is evident that
the SB-7 pertaining to Haldwani HO RD account No
60981 dated 5.1.2001 for Rs 41.670.00 was later on
removed from the record of SBCO Haldwani HO by said
shri RC Pandey, which facilitated said shri MC Suyal to
commit a huge fraud. Thus he violated the provisions
of Rule 29, Rule 58 r/w Rule 34 and 11 of Postal
Manual of SB Control Pairing and internal check
organisation, third edition (Corrected up to 1.12.1985).
Had he exercised the above checks properly the fraud
could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by
the Govt. would have certainly be averted.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by
his above acts and deeds not only violated the
provisions of aforesaid rules, but also exhibited lack of
integrity/devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also
violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules. 1964.
Article 4: That the said shri RC Pandey, while working
and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO
during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to
13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03, it was noticed that
shri MC Suyal RD/NSC discharge counter assistant
Haldwani HO made forged withdrawal of Rs 16668.00
on 23.2.2001 and again Rs 16668.00 on 17.3.2001
from Haldwani HO RD account No 62187. As per 100%
voucher checking register, the vouchers of this account
were checked by shri RC Pandey PA SBCO Haldwani
HO on 9.10.2001 and 10.11.2001 respectively, but he
Failed to detect the above irregular payments and as
such he facilitated said shri MC Suyal to commit fraud
amounting to Rs 84,51,093.00 from RD accounts. Thus
he violated the provisions of Rule 58 r/w Rule 34 and
11 of Postal Man. Of SB Control Pairing and internal
Check Organisation, third edition (Corrected up to
1.12.1985). Had he exercised the above checks
properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC Suyal
could have been detected earlier and loss sustained by
the Govt. would have certainly be averted.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by
his above acts and deeds not only violated the
provisions of said rules, but also exhibited lack of
integrity devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also
violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964
Article 5:-That the said shri RC Pandey, while working
and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO
during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to
13.11.02 and 28.11.02 to 18.1.03, it was noticed that
the many warrant of payments were shown as "will
follow", while no such remark has been noted in LOTS
by the RD counter PA/Dy PM Haldwani HO: -
In most of, the payment cases the payment was made
on maturity of RD accounts, but these actual warrant
of payments were used to replace the bogus warrant of
payments, which were kept on record in SBCO
Haldwani HO on earlier dates. The above vouchers
were shown W/F irregularly. As a matter of fact there is
no justification to show the vouchers pertaining to HO
as WF. Further he failed to bring this irregularity to the
notice of PM Haldwani HO divisional Head and AO
(ICO) concerned within stipulated period. Thus the said
shri RC Pandey facilitated shri MC Suyal to commit
fraud amounting to Rs 84,51,093.00 and violated the
provisions of Rule 4 of Postal manual of SB control.
pairing and internal check organisation, third edition
(corrected up to 1.12.1985), Had he exercised the above
checks properly, the fraud committed by said shri MC
Suyal could have been detected earlier and loss sustain
by the Govt. would have certainly be averted.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by
his above acts and deeds not only violated the
provisions of said rules, but also exhibited lack of
integrity devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also
violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article 6: That the said shri RC Pandey, while working
and discharging the duties of PA SBCO Haldwani HO
during the period w.e.f. 8.5.01 to 31.1.02, 11.2.02 to
13.11.02 & 28.11.02 to 18.1.03 failed to note the
objections in the objection register maintained in SBCO
Haldwani HO pertaining to RD branch of Haldwani HO
properly.
All the objections are fake & baseless. As such said shri
RC Pandey violated the provisions of Rule 13 of Postal
Manual of SB control pairing and internal check
organisation, third edition (Corrected up to 1.12.1985).
Had he exercised the above checks properly, the fraud
committed by said shri MC Suyal could have been
detected earlier and loss sustained by the Govt. would
have certainly be averted.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said shri RC Pandey by
his above acts and deeds not only violated the
provisions of said rules, but also exhibited lack of
integrity /devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby also
violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
6. Petitioner submitted his reply to the
chargesheet on 09.12.2003 denying all the charges. The
Inquiry Officer, after inquiry, submitted his inquiry report
on 11.08.2006, whereby, charges nos. 1, 2 and 4 were
proved while charge no. 5 was partially proved against
the petitioner. Charges nos. 3 and 6 were not proved
against the petitioner.
7. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority vide order
dated 10.11.2006 issued show cause notice to the
petitioner and granted time to submit his reply. Petitioner
submitted his reply to the inquiry report on 28.12.2006
and Disciplinary Authority without taking into
consideration the reply of the petitioner passed an order
of dismissal dated 18.05.2007 of the petitioner from
service.
8. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Post Master General,
Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun, which was rejected by the
Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.03.2008.
9. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 473 of 2009 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'). The
Tribunal after exchange of pleadings, disposed of the said
O.A. vide order dated 17.06.2015 and the Tribunal
remanded the matter back to the respondents to decide
petitioner's case afresh in view of the findings given by
the Tribunal. Paragraph 9 of the Tribunals order dated
17.06.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"9. In the circumstances, without interfering with
the impugned order, we remit back the matter to
the appellate authority to revisit its order keeping
in view the fact that Sri J.P. Joshi who committed
same misconduct as alleged against the applicant
in Article 5 of the Charge is inflicted with lesser
punishment and the amount mentioned in Articles
1, 2 and 4 of the charges had been withdrawn by
Sri M.C. Suyal before the applicant joined the
position in which he was supposed to check the
withdrawals. The appellate authority would also
keep in view the plea raised by the applicant in the
present O.A. i.e. certain other employees are
inflicted lighter punishments. The appellate
authority will pass the order within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order."
10. Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30.11.2015
passed a routine and cyclostyle order ignoring the
directions of the Tribunal. The operative part of the
aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
"The case of ex-employee has been re-
examined in the light of omissions and
commissions committed by him. The plea of ex-
employee that the other offenders in the case have
not been given severe punishment, does not reduce
the quantum of mistakes committed by him.
Therefore, his petition is hereby rejected and his
punishment of dismissal from service is allowed to
continue.
Reference is being made to the Directorate to
review the punishment of those employees in
whose cases it has been alleged that they have not
been given severe punishment commensurate to
their omissions & commission.
ORDER
I, Udai Krishna, Chief Postmaster General,
Uttarakhand Circle, therefore after carefully
examining the facts/records of the case, reject the
petition of Shri R.C. Pandey."
11. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal
by filing O.A. No. 30 of 2016, which was allowed by the
Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2016 and the Tribunal
quashed the order dated 30.11.2015 and directed the
respondents to reconsider the entire case and pass a well
reasoned and speaking order in the light of observation
made in its earlier order dated 17.06.2015. Operative
part of the judgment dated 16.05.2016 is extracted
hereinbelow:-
"4. A simple perusal of the direction passed in
O.A No. 473/09 and the order dated 30.11.2015
passed by the respondent no. 2 would reveal that
the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 is neither
speaking nor a reasoned order. It does not address
the plea raised by the applicant. Since the
applicant had raised the issue of other employees
involved in the episode of embezzlement of
government money given lighter punishment, it
would have been appropriate for the respondents
to record a comparative analysis of the role,
responsibility, accountability and punishment
ultimately awarded to each of them and justify the
punishments awarded to the applicant. Nothing of
this nature has been done while passing the
impugned order in compliance of the order dated
17.06.2015 passed in O.A No. 473/09.
5. We are of the view that the respondents ought to
have been more diligent and specific in addressing
the issues raised by the applicant and delineate
the whole picture in a crystal clear manner. It will
be in the interest of justice that the respondents
should undertake this exercise themselves again
and pass well reasoned and speaking order as
stated above. The O.A deserves to succeed.
6. Accordingly, the O.A is allowed. The order dated
30.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 is
quashed and set aside. The respondents are
directed to reconsider the entire case and pass a
well reasoned and speaking order in the light of the
observation made in Para-4 of this order, within
one month from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order. No costs."
12. The respondents, aggrieved by the Tribunal's
order dated 16.05.2016, approached to this Court by
filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 456 of 2016. However, the
said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court vide its
judgment and order dated 28.11.2016.
13. After WPSB No. 456 of 2016 was dismissed, the
respondents passed the order dated 14.07.2017 again
which was in the teeth of the earlier Tribunal's order and
High Court's order. The directions given by the Tribunal
were not followed and it was held that after a passage of
ten years, it would not be possible to revive the earlier
orders.
14. The petitioner challenged it before the Tribunal
by filing O.A No. 331/01156/2017. However, the said
Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide
its judgment and order dated 22.10.2018, whereby the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that inquiry was
conducted as per Rules and the conclusions of
Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are
based on evidence. Consequently, aggrieved by the
aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed
the present Writ Petition.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that an FIR was also lodged against Shri M.C.
Suyal, Shri K.N. Pandey, Shri R.C. Pandey (petitioner)
and Shri N.S. Bisht under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468,
471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, chargesheet
was filed and the case was registered as CBI Case No. 04
of 2004. The CBI Court did not find the petitioner guilty
of the charges leveled against him and was acquitted
while others were found guilty.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the evidence before the CBI Court and in
the departmental proceedings were same. Despite this
fact, in the departmental proceedings, petitioner has been
made a scapegoat and order of dismissal has been passed
against him, whereas, the other accused, having similar
charges or who were directly involved in the transactions,
have been granted minor punishment and, in fact,
against two accused, the department did not issue any
chargesheet and they were permitted to retire. In support
of his contention, petitioner has submitted a chart
disclosing the punishment awarded to the other
employees, who were granted minor punishment, which
is as hereunder:-
Table:- Officials, Charges, and Comparative Outcome
S Name Designatio Departmental Inquiry Outcome/R Remarks
r. of n Charges/Alleg Findings elief
N Officia ations
o. l
1 R.C. Supervisor, Alleged failure 1. Transactions Dismissed Singled out
Pande SBCO detect predated from service: despite
y Haldwani fraudulent posting; no relief acquittal;
(Petitio HPO withdrawals 2. Plea of alibi no parity or
ner) (Articles 1-6) ignored. proportiona
3. Article 1, 2 lity
and 4 Proved
other not
proved.
4. Mere
negligence.
2 Shri Supervisor, Ledger Article 1 proved Minor Minor
J.P. SBCO verification partly; others penalty penalty
Joshi Haldwani lapses; not proved (withholding despite
HPO subsidiary one similar
offender increment) charges
3 Shri Ledger Negligence; Article 1 and 2 (Major Reinstated
N.S. Assistant, Supervisory were not proved. penalty) despite
Bisht Haldwani Lapses: Article 3 Proved Dismissal similar
HPO Convicted in from charges
CBI case Service;
Reinstated
by Tribunal
4 Shri Deputy Supervisory Articles 2, 3, 4 Reduction Dismissal
D.S. Post lapses proved from the converted
Rana Master, LSG grade to to minor
Haldwani lower grade penalty
HPO
5 Shri Staff Minor One article not Recovery of Less severe
Prem procedural proved Rs. 14,075/- penalty
Joshi lapses; in despite co-
subsidiary installments offender
offender status
6 Shri Staff Minor lapses; Inquiry 20% pension Pensionary
M.C. retired completed under withheld for penalty; not
Gupta Rule 9 of CCS 3 years dismissal
(Pension) Rules,
7 Smt. Staff Alleged Three charges Fully Exonerated
Ganga supervision not proved exonerated despite
Rawat lapses; same
subsidiary unit/period
offender
8 Shri In- Subsidiary Charge under Proceedings Not
D.N. charge/Su offender Rule 14; ceased on proceeded
Belwal pervisor, proceedings 16.04.2007. due to
SBCO ceased due to retirement
Haldwani superannuation & death
HPO & death
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that charges leveled against him would reveal
that all the alleged forged withdrawals by Shri M.C. Suyal
were made before the petitioner joined the duties at Head
Office, Haldwani and even the vouchers, which were
placed for cross-checking before the petitioner, were
placed after more than eight to nine months delay and
wherever the petitioner found the irregularities, he had
noted it down in the objection register as per rules, but,
despite that only, petitioner has been singled out. The
other employees, who had been held guilty by the CBI
Court, had been left free by imposing minor penalty in
the departmental inquiry. But, to the contrary, the
petitioner, who had been acquitted by the CBI Court for
the same-self charge as framed in the departmental
proceedings, has been dismissed from service.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73; G.M. Tank Vs.
State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC
446; and, Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra
Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that despite clear direction given by the
learned Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court,
the Respondent-Authority had repeatedly not followed the
direction and passed the same order in a routine manner,
without application of mind and without recording any
reasoning. The respondents, despite categorical
directions, have not given any grounds as to why
petitioner have been given harsh punishment and others
have been let-off by awarding minor punishments for the
same charges.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that departmental proceedings and criminal
proceedings were not for the same charges as the
criminal trial against the petitioner was proceeded on the
charges under Sections 120B, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC
and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, whereas the
charges in the disciplinary enquiry were altogether
different, based upon the violation of certain codified
departmental rules, thus causing misconduct due to
negligence in discharge of official duties. Learned counsel
for the respondent has further submitted that
preponderance of probabilities in the criminal trial and
departmental proceedings are different, therefore,
petitioner could not seek benefit of acquittal in criminal
trial.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied
upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Airport Authority Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee,
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111.
23. This Court finds that the issue involved in this
judgment is altogether different, which has no bearing in
the present fact of cases. Here, the case stated by the
petitioner is that he has been made the scapegoat,
whereas the other employees, who were working at
Haldwani Head Quarter at the time when the alleged
fraud was committed, have either been let scot-free, as no
departmental inquiry was initiated against them or have
been given only minor punishment.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 9 of its
judgment, in the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra), has held
as hereunder:-
"9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are
equally placed; even among persons who are found
guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can
also claim equality of treatment, if they can
establish discrimination while imposing
punishment when all of them are involved in the
same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has
also to be maintained when punishment is being
imposed. Punishment should not be
disproportionate while comparing the involvement
of co-delinquents who are parties to the same
transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority
cannot impose punishment which is
disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious
offences and stringent punishment for lesser
offences."
25. No reasons have been assigned by the
Competent Authority as to why comparatively lighter
punishment and in two cases, no punishment (as they
were not even issued chargesheet) was awarded to other
co-delinquents while punishment of dismissal was passed
against the petitioner only. The petitioner was dismissed
from service despite the fact that he was acquitted in
criminal case while those delinquents who were convicted
by the CBI Court, have been awarded lesser punishment
when the charges leveled against the petitioner and other
co-delinquents in the departmental proceedings and the
criminal proceedings are grounded on the same set of
facts, charges, circumstances and evidence and for the
fact that petitioner at the most be held guilty of
negligence and no charge against embezzlement or
misappropriation was proved against the petitioner.
26. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, in our
considered view, it would be harsh on the petitioner to
remand the matter back to the Appellate
Authority/Respondent No. 2 to pass fresh orders. Even
otherwise also, the Appellate Authority/Respondent No.
2, despite earlier order, passed by the Tribunal and this
Hon'ble Court, did not re-consider the fact that other co-
delinquents have been awarded lighter punishment or in
two cases, no punishment, as was directed, but,
reiterated its earlier order by passing same cyclostyle
order. Since, the punishment awarded to one of the
delinquents Mr. J.P. Joshi, who was working on the same
post of Supervisor, SBCO, Haldwani HPO at the time
when the alleged fraud was committed, have been
inflicted with the minor punishment of 'withholding of
one increment', in our considered opinion, if the same
punishment is awarded to the petitioner, it would suffice
the interest of justice.
27. After hearing learned counsel for the parties
and perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion
that the order dated order dated 22.10.2018 passed by
learned Tribunal in Original Application No.
331/01156/2017 cannot be sustained and deserves to be
set-aside.
28. With the above observation, the present Writ
Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.10.2018
passed by learned Tribunal in Original Application No.
331/01156/2017, the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by
the respondent no. 2 vide its Memorandum No. Staff-
11/A-C.P.M.G/3/4/07 alongwith order of dismissal dated
18.05.2007 are set-aside and the petitioner is inflicted
with the minor punishment of 'withholding of one
increment', as has been granted to similar situate other
delinquent. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the
petitioner being Original Application No. 1156 of 2017 is
also allowed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
16.12.2025
Ujjwal
