IN THE 1mm covR'r OF JIIDICATGRE AT BILAsPUR (CG) WRIT PEIETION NO. l 6 4‘ OF 2005 BETVEEN Wé§ 9 whg Z chainae s/c shri chhotahari. Points Man ‘A‘ .resident of $Nb. 16/1 ,A Railway Colony. ’1\<argi aqad, District Bilaspur (CG). PETEIGNER 1. Union of India,throngh the secretary Ministry of aailways. Rail Bhavanmew Delhi.‘ The General Manager. south Eastern Railway.sarden Reach, Calcutta . smnivisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Division. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). Raspounamq WRIT PE‘ITTIOBII UNDER ARTICLE$ 225! 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA y ,, if, wf/M I m 200$- .. Wm aw?m (Wm WWW __'L( ilissan'sfleri with the above. m‘der f1: 5gdm1'nistrative Tribunal, Bench at machad to ths conclusion that th appeilata authcri j we ‘6 right 1‘11 £113: action wag heki vaEd by the ’ femanded back to the disciplinag break in sayice as that would 11 ‘xtifianttr till his mmoval weuid b€ 76 tmt‘itlm for grant of pénsionaly )ack the comyetent authm‘iry 1'11 vix ile order treating the intervening gensionary bEneflts. ' hereafter, a Tn‘bmlal in thE y€ar 1999 and th€ '1 1m ptau’tioner vidc ordm‘ datéd 22.9 Leanmd counsel for the p€t ila$ been heid guilty for miscond‘ giving a11y oppomnrhy of hearing a of salary was aieo not considered, :Hegal. We are aii‘aid Thai such a ple L 1 belated siage, before the nibun EVIoreover, baking to the sen'ousnee netitionef, the antherities have all? {0 not fmd any illegality or imirmi‘ nterfere with the findings of the Xuthon'ty & Central Adminisn‘atiize W ‘ m 200 WWW §Q§WR $sima1éf¥r e petitioner ayprcaehed the Centraf Jabalyur Where the Tribunal £1130 e disciplinary authority as W611 aS paseing the impugned orders and ‘1‘iblmai. Hewevef. The matter was authorinr m ceaeider the ease 13f ean that the enn‘re eet'v‘ice of the totally washed away and he. will not beneiits. On receiving the matter ‘iw of The direction. of rhe CAT paSS oeriod inciutied. for the purpose of gain the petitioner approached the 'I'ihnnal dismiseed the O‘A. iiled by 2003. uglier submits that. the eeiii‘ioner 1C1: without any evidence; without rid break of sewice for the purpose therefurm the impugned orcierS are cannot be ailowed i0 raiiae a? such E al also no Such pie-a wae iaieexi. s of miscom’luet on the yart of the ady taken the lenient View and we y in the impugned orders; so a3 to Disciplinary Authox‘i‘w, Appeiiaie Tribunal. Even in me iirst rounci a G}; DRI—FSBSO—l2/2000—50,000. _,5 ‘H‘ {‘LWWa?) g“ ,£$0 WWW?! *3- %WW§?§¢TW ‘Emwam‘w o litigatio in .A. No.208/95 t} f n O Tribunal has held that the orders of Disciplina 85 Appellate Authori es are valid. ThCrd‘On waarc of tl1€ co sidm‘sd Vim? that thsrc is 110 mark in is atmr, same is iiabie. m 1 i e dismisssd and it is, accordmgly, dismiSSed at fhé acmiSsiGn stagxa f/i Sd/- L.. C Bhaoo d Judge madi Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra Judge “3%“ ry i. th m