1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5798 OF 2007 (Shankar Zibal Meshram vs. Union of India & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 23, 2009. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lambat, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. In view of our earlier orders passed on 20.7.2009 and thereafter on 13.08.2009, we find it necessary to have a finding whether the alleged error in mentioning the number of sub-rule as “(VI)” is an error inadvertently caused while printing and the actual number should have been “(IV)”. The contention that it is a printing error is being seriously disputed by Shri Pathan, learned counsel, who states that in Hindi version also, the same number appears. He has pointed out that in amended copy of 2003 also, the same number has been mentioned. It is, therefore, clear that how said power to punish has been exercised in other matters is an issue relevant for recording the finding in this respect. The aspect can be more conveniently considered by the 2 Central Administrative Tribunal. Shri Pathan, learned counsel has further pointed out that the disagreement with finding of Enquiry Officer of Article 3 of charge sheet has not been reached by immediate disciplinary authority and he states that challenge in this respect was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal which is not looked into at all. According to him, while imposing punishment, certain documents which do not form part of Enquiry proceedings, of which copies were not supplied to the petitioner, have been looked into. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 tried to contend that those are the confidential papers pertaining to service record of the petitioner. As the matter is being sent back to CAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law, we leave all these issues open for its consideration. In the circumstances, the order dated 21.4.2006 and order dated 12.7.2007 passed by CAT in O.A. and in review proceedings are quashed. O.A. No. 2220 of 2003 is restored back to its file for taking fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.