+ o/o IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NE\M DELHI WP.(C).No.8019 /2O03 Date of Decision : 27ft March, 2OOG I.S. RAJPROHIT .....Petitioner, Through : Petitioner in person versus UOI & ORS. THR.D.G.& SECY.I .....Respondent Through : Mr. V.K. Rao, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. CHATURVEDI t. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgme nt? Vo , 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? r,, 3. Whether the judgment should be h) o reported in the Digest? MUKUL MUDGAL, J.(Oral) l. When the matter carne up for hearing the petitioner who is present in person was asked by the Court whether he would like ?-+ 'fr I $ y,' wP.(c).8oL9 /2OO3 Page I of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:05.08.2023 12:12 Certify the the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified it- \\ \\ I to engage an amicus curiae given by the Court. The petitioner declined the offer and he insisted upon arguing the matter in person. 2. Rule D.B. With ttre consent of counsel for the parties, ttre matter is taken up for firlal hearing. 3. The writ petitioner challenges tLre order dated L4.I.2OO3 dismissing OA No.282/2OO2 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench. The petitioner was initially issued a charge-memo dated 5/7.10.1999 containing two arlicles of charge (a) remairiing absent without approval from 13.5.1998 to L9.2.1999 and tb) refusal to accept the relieving order. The inqurry officer submitted his report dated L.7 .2OOO and held the first article of charge as 'proved' and second article of charge as 'not proved'. The disciplinary auttrority by its order dated 2Oe October, 2OOO imposed on the applicant the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. The said order of compulsory retirement was challenged before the appellate authority on 3.L2.2OOO. In the meantime, in OA No.2295 /2OOO there was an order of CAT directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months . r,\. wP.(c).8or9 /2oo3 Page 2 of 4 HI \t/ The appellate authority by order dated 28.L2.2OOI reduced the punishment imposed by reverting the appellant from the post of Superintendent to the post of Junior Stenographer. The petitioner challenged the punishment of reversion by filing OA No.282/2OO2 resulting in the impugned order dated 14.1.2003. We have noticed the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. It has recorded every plea of the petitioner and recorded the plea of tJle respondent without any sufficient reasoning for rejecting the pleas of ttre petitioner. This is not a satisfactory ma.nner of dealing with the pleas of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed fairly that the plea of the petitioner could have been dealt with a better by recording reasons by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter we are satisfied that ttre order of the Tribunat dated L4.L 2OO3 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside by the writ of certiorari. The Tribunal may consider the O.A. of the petitioner afresh by dealing with the pleas of the petitioner in an appropriate manner. Accordingly the O.A. No.282/2OO2 is revived. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on l"t May, 2006. Since the matter originated in the year 2OO2, CAT will dispose of the O.A. filed by the \{" wP.(c).8ore /2oo3 Page 3 of 4 r t, petifloner not later than 3L.L2.2006. The writ petition and ttre pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. JUDGE V l.arch 27, SA 2006 v' (B.N.CHATURVEDIJ wP.(c).8oL9 i2OO3 Page 4 of 4