CWP No. 16207 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No. 16207-CAT of 2008 Date of decision : September 12, 2008 * * * * * U.O.I and others ............Petitioners Versus Kuldeep Kumar and another ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. K.K Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * * M.M KUMAR, J. Union of India along with its Officers have approached this Court by challenging the order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in OA No.353-PB-2007 quashing the order of the punishing authority dated 14.6.2006 (Annexure P-4). The punishing authority has passed the order dated 14.6.2006 in pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) reducing the punishment awarded to the applicant-respondent no.1 from the compulsory retirement to that of `reduction to lower stage from 3200/- to 2900/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.2550/--3200/- for a period of three years. CWP No. 16207 of 2008 2 The revisional authority in its order has made it absolutely clear that punishment of three years is to commence from the date of original order of compulsory retirement which was passed on 16.3.2002. In the purported exercise of jurisdiction under Fundamental Rule 54 of the Rules applicable to the applicant- respondent no.1, the petitioners have passed order dated 14.6.2006 (Annexure P-4) which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. The petitioners by assuming the power of punishing authority has ordered that whole period from 20.3.2002 to 19.5.2006 be treated as leave of the kind due. The Tribunal has taken a view that the order passed by the punishing authority in purported exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 54 would not be sustainable as it amounts to modifying/setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority on 10.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) Accordingly, the Tribunal has set aside the order with liberty to the petitioners to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Having head the learned counsel at a considerable length, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. It is undisputed that the revisional authority in its order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) has issued specific directions inflicting punishment on applicant-respondent no.1 of reduction to lower scales for a period of three years which was to commence from the date of original penalty order. A further direction has been issued by the revisional authority that the applicant-respondent was not to earn increments of his pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such CWP No. 16207 of 2008 3 period, the reduction was not to have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. We are satisfied that the order of Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE September 12, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE