Sections 3, 5, 6 and 10 Basic Rules, R 29 Large sentence of reduction on lesser punishment was imposed after issuing a show cause notice to the appellant against Said penalty and inquiry against him on certain charges. And it was carefully crafted the charges according to which the witnesses' statements were dealt with accordingly, including the appellant's older brother as well as the statement of the inspector, who testified that the appellant's car He was found sitting in the showroom, which was family business, during office hours, instead of performing duty in the office, the allegations related to the audit work were recorded and accordingly in the inquiry report, however, he Did not clear the appellant from accepting bribes, which was serious corruption. Since the matter had been in litigation for a long time, the appellant should not have been reinstated for the appropriate sentence if the appellant had not been able to pass for a long time, if the respondents had the same grade / rank. Given the duration of the penalty imposed on FR 29, it could not have been held to a lesser degree if it had acted in accordance with FR 29. Because the appellant was not compliant with the law, the appeal had been ongoing for almost 6 years, amending it to prevent an increase for a period of one year.
Related judgments — Federal Service Tribunal, 2010
