1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2203 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4207 OF 2009 ... Mr.Vijay Bhaskaran Nair(Deceased) Mrs.Lata Vijay Nair & Anrs. ..Petitioner v/s. The Secretary Ministry of Water Resources and ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Salil U. Ray for the Petitioner. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:19 th December,2009 P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. Civil Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4207 OF 2009 ... Mr.Vijay Bhaskaran Nair(Deceased) Mrs.Lata Vijay Nair & Anrs. ..Petitioner v/s. The Secretary Ministry of Water Resources and ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Salil U. Ray for the Petitioner. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:19 th December,2009 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner was in service of the Government of India as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 18-6-1981. He was promoted 3 to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 29-1-1992 and on 29-12-1992 he was deputed to work as a cashier. While working as a cashier he remained absent on duty from 20 th April, 1995 onwards without applying for leave and without getting his leave sanctioned. It was then found that he has also not written the cash book for a days on end and that cash of Rs.8,08,797.10 was short. Therefore, three charges were framed. First charge was regarding defaulcation and second charge was about unauthorised absent and third charge was for not maintaining the record namely not writing cash book. The Disciplinary Authority held, so far as first charge is concerned that the charge is proved, but the Inquiry Officer held that other officers are also involved. Other two charges were also held to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the inquiry record agreed with 4 the finding of the Inquiry Officer and imposed punishment. That order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The only argument advanced before the Central Administrative Tribunal is that the Disciplinary Authority before disagreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer that so far as embezzlement charge is concerned other officers are also responsible or guilty, the Disciplinary Authority should have given notice to the Petitioner. That aspect of the matter has been considered in detail by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that no exception can be taken to the punishment imposed on the Petitioner. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We find that the charges levelled against the Petitioner , all three 5 of them were of extremely serious nature. Even accepting the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that as the Petitioner was prosecuted on charge of defalcation in criminal court and he has been acquitted of that charge, that could not have been taken into consideration for imposing the punishment, in our opinion, the order imposing the punishment cannot be disturbed because the charge of not writing cash book for a number of days by a cashier and proceeding on leave without intimating to anybody, are of extremely serious charges. We also find that merely because criminal court has acquitted the Petitioner, it will not have any impact on the finding recorded in the departmental inquiry on the same charge. 3. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, no exception can 6 be taken to the order of the Central Administrative Tribuna impugned in the petition. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)