B.c. Sihra vs Union Of India And Ors

On 5th April, 2018, no-one appeared for the petitioner. Today also when the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the tribunal has

dismissed the original application.

While considering the matter, the tribunal held as under :-

“Learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated all what he has stated in the Original Application. He argued that the applicant was not having any

enmity with the complainant, Shri B.L. Soni, and therefore, there is no reason why he would threatened him and moreover, Shri Soni along with other

officials were on tour from 14.50 hours to 22.00 hours on 27.05.1996 which is evident from the Log Book of the vehicle. Thus the incident of

threatening and slapping Shri Soni had in fact not happened. The applicant was also not supplied necessary documents to defend his case. The

Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority have not applied their mind while issuing the orders. The penalty imposed on the

applicant is too harsh.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there were three eye witnesses to the incident, which occurred at 17:15 hours and all

of them during the course of preliminary inquiry as well as during the course of oral inquiry have testified the incident of threatening by the applicant.

He again emphasized that all the officers (Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisionary Authorities) after due consideration of all the material placed on

record, have applied their mind before passing the orders. He also stated that punishment imposed on the applicant is also already over.

On the submissions & arguments, which was produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that these all have already been

gone through in detail by the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report and there is no merit in it. As regards the comments of the Inquiry officer, the

applicant should be punished' has already been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, the report of the Inquiry officer are only the

findings and it is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the details of the Inquiry report and its finding to base his decision

depending upon the same. As regards the bias-ness of Inquiry officer, the applicant has also not produced any documentary evidence to show that the

inquiry officer was biased against him and moreover, he has not made him party by name. Therefore, this allegation of the applicant is not sustainable

in the eye of law and is rejected. As regards the XT-1 diary not been made available to the applicant, it has been already mentioned in the Inquiry

report that it would not have made any material difference. The Disciplinary authority has already taken into account all the aspect and imposed the

penal of “withholding of three increments of pay without cumulative effect.†which according to me, seems a lenient view by the Disciplinary

authority.

In view of what has been mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant has not made any case for interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly,

the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.â€​

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the tribunal, hence the petition stands dismissed.