Civil Writ Petition No.21556 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21556 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 03, 2010 Jagmeet Singh ..Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J The instant petition is directed against judgment dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity “the Tribunal”) quashing the order dated 26.5.2008 passed by the respondent- department, which has inflicted punishment of 'Censure' on the petitioner. The basic reason for passing the order dated 26.5.2008 was that the petitioner was found guilty of subletting government accommodation on the disagreement expressed by the Disciplinary Authority although the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner. As a consequence of the aforesaid finding, punishment of `Censure' Civil Writ Petition No.21556 of 2010 2 was inflicted on him. The Tribunal has held that the disciplinary authority failed to record any disagreement note and send the same to the petitioner. Therefore the order inflicting the punishment of `Censure' has not been sustained by the Tribunal. Thereafter consequential order for recovery of Rs.2,11,614/-, which was the balanced amount, was ordered to be deposited by the petitioner. That order also stands quashed by the Tribunal with a further direction to pay back to whole amount recovered from the petitioner. The only ground in support of the petition urged before us is that no interest has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, we do not find any substance in the argument that the petitioner would be entitled to interest because the petitioner has been saved of any further departmental action, which could have been initiated after granting permission to the department to proceed from the stage of the submission of an inquiry report. The respondents have also not challenged the order of the Tribunal on that ground and therefore it has attained finality. In our view, the Tribunal has taken a compassionate view and has also directed the refund of the amount already recovered from the petitioner who stands retired. Therefore, we do not see any valid reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Tribunal and in our view, no interest could be awarded to the petitioner. Dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) December 03, 2010 JUDGE VK