Union of India (UOI) vs G. Ilango and Central Administrative Tribunal

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 13.03.2001, made in Original

Application No.P.27 of 19 99, the Pondicherry Administration has filed the above Writ Petition.

Heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the Government of Pondicherry as well as counsel for the contesting first respondent.

The first respondent herein was appointed as Police Driver on 10.03.1970 and thereafter promoted as Head Constable (Driver) in 1995. On

20.05.1993, a charge memo was issued to him. The charges framed in the said memo are as follows:-

HC (D) 690 G. Ilango has a wife by name Saroja, D/o.Utirapathy of Annavasal, Nedungadu. She is a Balvadi Teacher and married Ilango during

the year 1977 at Cuddalore Registration Office. One male boy by name Praveen Kumar was born to them. She is belonging to S.C. H.C.(D) 690

G.Ilango has then married his uncle''s daughter Anjammal, D/o.Vadivelu of Oziapathu, Neravy in the year 19 78 at Swamimalai to whom one male

child Prathaban and female child Pravina born. "" Based on the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted. The first respondent participated in the

enquiry proceedings. Amongst other persons, one Saroja, who, according to the Department, is the first wife of the first respondent, was enquired

by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge as against the Head Constable (Driver) was proved.

Accepting the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order, dismissing the first respondent from service. Appeal filed by him came to be

dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation. In such circumstances, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing

O.A.P-27/99.

The Tribunal considered the matter in detail. After finding that only in the Birth Certificate issued by Karaikal Municipality, there is a reference to

the name of Anjammal, who is said to be the second wife of the applicant, and in the absence of any oral evidence in support of the same, taking

note of the statement of Saroja in the enquiry, the Tribunal accepted the case of the applicant/first respondent herein and found that there is no

evidence to establish the charge against him and set aside the orders passed by the original and appellate authorities.

We have also perused the enquiry proceedings, which are available in the typed set of papers and also the order of the Tribunal. Except the

Birth Certificates relating to Prathaban and Pravina, wherein the name of Anjammal finds place, no other material is available to conclude that the

applicant/first respondent married Anjammal as his second wife. The Tribunal, on verification of the above materials and the enquiry proceedings,

arrived at a conclusion that the charge against the applicant has not been proved. In view of the factual findings of the Tribunal, which are based on

proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, in the absence of any other material before us, we are not inclined to interfere with the

order of the Tribunal.

Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioners herein are directed to implement the

order of the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Index: yes Internet: yes JI.

To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.