THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATY WRIT PETITION No :11380 of 2001 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad made in O.A. No. 528 of 2000, dated 10.4.2001 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner. The facts in brief are that while the petitioner was working as Senior Scientific Assistant in Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, a charge memo was issued to him in the year 1995 on the ground that he submitted false particulars in respect of four official journeys claimed to have been performed by him. An enquiry was initiated into the matter and the enquiry officer after completion of the enquiry, submitted a report holding the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, through order dated 10.6.1997, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority through order dated 23.6.1998 while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved, he filed O.A. No. 1535 of 1998 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through order dated 8.12.1999 remanded the matter to the appellate authority for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, the appellate authority again passed an order on 25.1.2000 dismissing the said appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 528 of 2000 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through the impugned order dated 10.4.2001, dismissed the said O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. Sri Y. Venkata Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no reasons have been assigned by the disciplinary authority for rejecting his representation dated 12.12.1995. He further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the competent/disciplinary authority has considered the representation of the petitioner. He would further submit that the appellate authority is bound to give reasons for rejection of his appeal and the order of the appellate authority does not disclose that he made any such attempt to reach the said conclusion. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. & Others([1]) and Chairman, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors.,([2]). He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the department has supported the impugned order and submitted that the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. On a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the allegation that he had furnished fake particulars in respect of the journeys claimed to have been performed by him during the period from February,1994 to April, 1994, by first class in train. The enquiry officer, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner with immediate effect and with full compensatory pension and gratuity under the provisions contained in Rule 40 of C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, 1972 amended from time to time. Challenging the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioner specifically contended before the 1st respondent stating that though he submitted his explanation to the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority without considering the same has passed the order of compulsory retirement. In his explanation submitted by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has stated that he submitted two TA/DA bills on 18.4.94 in which is stated that he travelled in first class by train on 6.2.94 from Secunderabad to New Delhi and back and again on 14.2.94 from Delhi to Secunderabad, in A.P. Express. He has also taken an advance of Rs.2,230/- and Rs.2,420/-, besides claiming an amount of Rs.898/- from Secunderbad to New Delhi. However, the enquiry officer basing on two letters dated 10.1.1995 and 20.1.1995 received from the Office of the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad asked the petitioner to submit the first class tickets or copies of the same to show that he performed journeys on those dates. When the petitioner failed to furnish the same, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges as proved. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and that the enquiry was conducted in a hasty manner and the report of the enquiry was biased. Further, on a perusal of the order dated 10.4.1997 of the disciplinary authority, it is seen that the disciplinary authority after considering each and every point raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 12.12.1995 has come to the conclusion that none of the points raised by the petitioner has got any substance and while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Even before the appellate authority, the petitioner except reiterating the contentions which were urged before the disciplinary authority, did not file any fresh material to disturb the order of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the appellate authority having given its anxious consideration to the matter, found that the petitioner has failed to put up any defence either during the course of inquiry or even after receiving a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, in the absence of which, the appellate authority held that the charge of making false TA/DA claim with dishonest intention of defrauding the Government is proved. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner while confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record and the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, while taking into consideration the gravity of the mis-conduct alleged against the petitioner, rightly declined to interfere with the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 13th September, 2010 _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY,J pnb [1] AIR 1970 SC 1302 [2] 2009(4) SCC 240