Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14466-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1185 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Yadav Respondent :- Union of India and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order of minor penalty has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 21.11.2017 regarding not following the directions of the senior and not appearing before the authority when directed to do so in relation to the said allegation. 3. The petitioner filed his response. Whereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 4.4.2018, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved, appeal was filed, which came to be rejected, against which revision was filed, which was not decided. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal on earlier occasion directed decision on the revision petition, which came to be dismissed. Whereafter, the present Original Application was filed seeking setting aside of the order of punishment, appellate order and revisional order. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and after examining all the issues as raised, came to the conclusion that the order impugned did not call for any interference and consequently, dismissed the Original Application. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that a bare look at the order dated 4.4.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority would reveal that while passing the speaking order, the authority has employed his personal knowledge pertaining to the charge and therefore, the order is vitiated and the same therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. One of the allegation against the petitioner was that when after the incident dated 13.11.2017, the petitioner was required to appear before the competent authority, he did not appear and again on 17.11.2017 he was required to appear, he again did not appear. 9. In response to the said charge, the petitioner indicated that his physical condition was not good and therefore, he had left the office for home and that he came back along with fitness certificate and thereafter, he had continued his duty peacefully. 10. Apparently, from the response filed, the petitioner has not even claimed that he had presented himself when he was called for the purpose and relied on the fact that he had gone on leave on account of sickness and had given sickness certificate and rejoined. 11. In those circumstances, the fact that the disciplinary authority noticed in the order impugned that petitioner was called and he did not appear , by itself cannot make him a witness to the said allegation so as to vitiate the order impugned. The Tribunal has thoroughly considered all the issues as raised and has come to the conclusion that no interference was required. 12. In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 nd/piyush (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad