THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATY WRIT PETITION No :5918 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 22.11.2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A. No.187 of 2001. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Fitter on 3.9.1966 in the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein. The said post was subsequently re-designated as Technician –A. It is stated that during the year 1972-73 the petitioner claimed reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 2,328.40 and the same was also reimbursed to him after due verification. While so, on the basis of an anonymous complaint that some of the employees of the third respondent and other Defence Laboratories at Hyderabad made false claims in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses, the third respondent constituted a Board of enquiry on 15.5.1976 to enquire into the medical claims submitted by various employees upto the said date. It appears, many of the employees have gone before the Board of Inquiry and confessed that their claims were not genuine. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Board of Inquiry as his claims were genuine. But the department through order dated 23.8.1976 placed the petitioner under suspension. Subsequently, charge memo was issued to him on 29.4.1977 alleging that he had preferred false medical claims. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo while denying the charges levelled against him. The petitioner, thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 7984 of 1981 before this Court questioning the competency of the third respondent to initiate the departmental proceedings and a Division Bench of this Court through order dated 1.4.1982 allowed the said writ petition. Assailing the same, the department carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court through order dated 10.4.1990 while setting aside the order dated 1.4.1982 of this Court allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter to this Court for fresh disposal. Since the matter was not disposed of on merits, the matter stood transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was numbered as T.A. No.22 of 1991. The Tribunal, through order dated 29.5.1992, disposed of the said T.A. directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously duly reinstating the petitioner into service. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed on 30.9.1992, but he did not proceed with the enquiry for a period of two years. Then the petitioner filed O.A. No. 370 of 1994 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through order dated 31.3.1994 disposed of the same directing the respondents to complete the enquiry by 31.5.1994 failing which the order of suspension stands revoked. As the enquiry could not be completed by the date specified by the Tribunal, the order of suspension was revoked. Subsequently, another enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the matter and the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry into the matter has submitted report on 20.7.1995 holding the charges as not proved. However, the third respondent, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and without furnishing a copy of the findings to the petitioner, had passed an order dated 29.1.1996 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage, i.e., from Rs. 1,150/-to Rs.1,130/- per month for a period of four years, which shall have the effect of postponement of future increments and for recovery of Rs.2,348-40 ps. It was also observed that the period of suspension from 23.8.1976 to 31.5.1994 will not be counted for the purpose of seniority and increments, except for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 489 of 1996 before the Tribunal. By order dated 13.9.1996, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. directing the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of punishment within one month and on such appeal being filed, the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the same within two months thereafter. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and through order dated 19.12.1996, the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1778 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 12.4.1999, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. by setting aside the order of punishment and directed the third respondent to furnish a copy of the note of his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and after considering the representation/explanation of the petitioner to pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the third respondent passed an order on 10.9.1999 restoring the pay of the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, passed an order dated 28.10.1999 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay from Rs.3875/- to 3800/- for a period of one year. It was further observed that the period of suspension from 23.8.1976 to 31.5.1994 will not be counted for the purpose of seniority and increments, except for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the said appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent through order dated 13.4.2000. Challenging the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 187 of 2001, which is impugned herein, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, dismissed the said O.A. on the ground that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the medical bills furnished by him are genuine. The Tribunal further observed that the evidence placed on record clearly established that majority of the employees of DMRL during the relevant period made false medical claims and have admitted the said facts before the Court of Inquiry and refunded the amounts in easy instalments and as the petitioner also obtained essentiality certificates and cash memos from the same doctor and the same medical halls and since the petitioner also made claim during the same period, the claims made by him are also false. Hence the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal passed the impugned order basing on surmises and conjectures. He further stated that the petitioner did not appear before the board of enquiry nor did he admit that his claim is false. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal erred in observing that as many of the employees during the relevant period have submitted fake medical claims claiming medical reimbursement and since the petitioner also claimed medical reimbursement during the relevant period by obtaining essentiality certificate and cash memos from the same doctor and the same medical halls and since the petitioner also filed claims in the same pattern as was done by the other employees, the claim of the petitioner is not genuine. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that majority of the employees during the relevant period have obtained essentiality certificate and cash memos from the same doctor and medical halls from whom the petitioner also obtained them. Merely because the petitioner obtained essentiality certificate and medical bills from the same doctor and the same medical halls from whom the other employees have obtained and in the same pattern, the Tribunal cannot reject the claim of the petitioner on that ground. It is also seen from the record that the other employees have appeared before the Court of Inquiry and confessed that they have made false medical claims and also refunded the money in instalments. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear before the Court of Inquiry and made a confession that he made a false claim nor did he refund the amount, as was done by the other employees during the relevant period. The Tribunal, without appreciating these facts, has dismissed the O.A. in quite a routine manner. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad for deciding the O.A. afresh. The Tribunal, shall now dispose of O.A. No. 187 of 2001 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 27th September, 2010 ____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY,J pnb