THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20635 of 1999 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), allowing the said O.A. by order, dated 05-04-1999, whereby the Tribunal had set aside the punishment imposed and remitted the disciplinary enquiry for fresh consideration from the stage of considering the representation, dated 25-05-1994 submitted by the applicant in answer to the charge memo. The said order is questioned in this writ petition by the respondents in the O.A. and at the time of admission of the writ petition on 28-10-1999, the impugned order was suspended. We have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. There is no controversy that during pendency of these proceedings, the impugned order of punishment has been given effect to and the respondent herein has already undergone the punishment of reduction of pay by four stages as directed by the appellate authority in its order, dated 26-07-1996 and that the respondent had retired from service on 28-02-2009. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the alleged letter of admission by the respondent, which was relied on by the Enquiry Officer, was taken into consideration by the Tribunal for the purpose of remitting the disciplinary enquiry. It is further stated that the said letter was taken by coercion and as such it cannot amount to an admission. It is however to be noticed that after the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent had preferred an appeal and in the memorandum of appeal no where the respondent alleged anything against the said letter of admission as contended in the O.A. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly found that the said contention of the respondent raised for the first time in the O.A. cannot be accepted. We agree with the said view of the Tribunal and in view of said clear admission of the respondent specifically admitting the charge levelled against him in his letter, dated 25-05-1994, which is extracted herein for the sake of convenience. “Please refer to Memorandum No.NFC/PA.V/2606/ 0469/785, dated 28-02-1994. “I hereby admit the charge levelled against me. I request you to kindly take a lenient view and consider the case sympathetically.” The above letter would clearly go to show that the respondent has categorically admitted the charge levelled against him and requested to take a lenient view by considering the case sympathetically. Since the appellate authority had already applied its mind and modified the punishment to reduction of pay by four stages for a period of seven years, and the said punishment having already been implemented and effected and in view of the fact that the respondent has already retired from service on 28-02-2009, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter also, the order of the Tribunal interfering with the punishment is not justified as the Enquiry Officer had given his report on the basis of clear admission of the respondent and the punishment imposed therefore, could not have been found fault with. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1630 of 1997, dated 05-04-1999. Since the period of punishment is already over, the petitioners shall pay all retirement benefits to the respondent according to the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 08-10-2009 Prv