Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra

JUDGMENT

B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 22263-22264 of 2012.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2012 of the High Court of Delhi passed in Review Petition No. 102 of 2012; and the order dated 1.2.2012 in Writ Petition No. 4207 of 2011. By way of this order the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India - Respondent No. 1 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), raising a very large number of grievances. The Appellant was running from pillar to post as he had been harassed and penalised for no fault of his own and has been awarded a punishment which is uncalled for. Thus, he had moved the Tribunal, High Court of Delhi and this Court several times.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals and contempt petitions are as under:

A. The Appellant, an IPS Officer of 1982 batch joined the service on 1.9.1982, promoted on the post of Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.), and subsequently as Inspector General of Police (I.G.) in his cadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh in May 2001. The Appellant was on deputation and was posted as I.G., Frontier Head Quarters, Border Security Force (BSF) (North Bengal) from 23.6.2005 to 14.11.2006.

B. The Appellant was put under suspension vide order dated 13.11.2006 as the disciplinary authority decided to hold disciplinary proceedings. As a consequence thereof, a charge sheet dated 23.3.2007 containing 8 charges was served upon him. The Appellant denied all the said charges and therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Department examined a large number of witnesses and produced documents in support of its case. The Appellant also defended himself and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated 23.12.2008 holding him guilty, as charge No. 3 stood proved fully while charge Nos. 4 and 6 stood proved partly.

C. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with one of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on one charge and held that charge No. 4 was proved fully. In response to the show cause notice issued to the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority, he submitted a detailed representation against the disagreement note by the Disciplinary Authority on 10.11.2009.

D. On being sought, the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSC') gave its advice regarding the punishment on 20.8.2010. The Central Vigil........