IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8848 of 2006 UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus SHRI R.N.PRASAD & ANR ----------- 07- 8.2.2010 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2004 (Annexure 8), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in OA No.239 of 1998 (R N Prasad vs. Union of India), whereby the original application has been allowed in part, and the punishment inflicted on the applicant (respondent no.1 herein) has been reduced. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no.1 herein was at the relevant point of time posted as S.O.(Accounts), in the office of the Controller of Accounts (P & A), Calcutta. The following charges were levelled against him:- Article of Charge: I Shri R N Prasad while working as SO(A) in Pay Section of Main Office of the CC of A (Fys) Cacutta has drawn LTC advance amounting to Rs.10330/- for the block year 1990-93 for his family with the intention to visit Kanyakumari and back in 1st Class. The said Shri Prasad had submitted final adjustment claim on 28.6.93 claiming 1st class fare and shown ticket numbers as available with him. On verification, the Railway Authority had confirmed that ticket no.68484195 (PNR N0.510050) was purchased on 16.4.93 and the same was cancelled on 17.4.93. An amount of Rs.6300/- was refunded for cancellation of 4 full and 2 half 1st class tickets. It indicates that Shri R N Prasad had knowingly 2 submitted a fraudulent LTC bill which he had admitted vide his written statement dated 28.10.93 before the Vigilance Officer. Thus, by the above acts, Shri Prasad had violated theprovisions of Rule 3(1)(i ii & iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Article of Charge II That the said Sri R N Prasad, SO(A), A/C No.8306211 had submitted a fraudulent LTC bil for which he had paid Rs.3500/- to Shri Apurba Adhikari of `FA’ Section of Main Office, Calcutta, in order to ensure that his false LTC claim may be passed in full. This fact was confessed by him in his confessional statement daed 20.10.93. It indicates that he had intentionally tried to defraud Govt. money. Thus, by his above act, Shri Prasad had violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.” 3. The applicant admitted his acts of omission and commission in his cause shown before the authorities, as a result of which the authorities did not feel the necessity of holding any departmental proceeding and concluded on the basis of the employee’s admission. Consequently, penalty of reduction of pay by three stages from Rs. 2180 to Rs.2000 in the time scale pay of Rs.1640-2900/-, for a period of four years, without cumulative effect was inflicted on him as per the order dated 8.8.95. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid original application. One of the grounds taken by him was that one Smt. Meera Ghose, an Auditor in the same department was found guilty of identical dereliction, but was inflicted lighter punishment. The contention found favour with the Tribunal as a result of which the punishment inflicted on the respondent herein was reduced and was put at par with that of 3 Smt. Meera Ghose. In substance, the Tribunal has upheld the decision of the authorities that the employee is guilty of misconduct, and has reduced his pay by one stage for two years without cumulative effect. 4. Much can be said on both sides, though it prima facie appears to us that it may have been a better option to uphold the order of punishment passed by the learned disciplinary authority. However, in view of the position that the matter has remained pending in this Court for quite some time, notices had not been directed to be issued to the employee at the stage of grant of rule, we deem it fit and proper to dismiss this writ petition. After all, the Tribunal has upheld the finding of the learned disciplinary authority to the effect that the employee is guilty of misconduct, and has reduced the punishment. 4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl