2018 (1) TMI 1663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No. 184 of 2010 and O.A.No. 243 of 2010. 2. The petitioners are the retired employees of the respondents - Ministry of Defence, Canteen Stores Department. The incident in question took place on 10th January, 2002. Briefly stated the incident in question related to the consignment of 310 cases of Government stores worth Rs. 25.61 lakhs. The goods were dispatched vide Transfer Invoice Nos. 10561 and 10546 from CSD, Mumbai to Bareilly by road through approved transport contractor M/s. Adarsh Parivahan. The consignment did not reach the destination. This incident came to light through the auditor's report dated 28/3/2003. A pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing officers were not proceeded against with. This according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners is discriminatory. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contend that the Tribunal while holding that the delay is satisfactorily explained took into consideration the synopsis submitted by the respondents at the stage of arguments which synopsis is beyond the pleadings. The explanation for the delay mentioned in the synopsis does not form part of the affidavitinreply filed by the respondents nor supported by any documents which form part of the record. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He invited our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal and partic....