of India, there was no departmental appeal under the Service Rules and, therefore, the petitioner had directly approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which has considered the arguments on behalf of the petitioner in two different rounds and held that the order of punishment did not call for interference. Having regard to the opinion recorded by the UPSC, it is clear that the petitioner exhibited an element of negligence in discharge of his duties and he overlooked the work done by his subordinates. An indication of the petitioner advising and assigning the bills to certain appraisers has also been recorded by the UPSC and based on the papers placed before it. The Tribunal has considered this material and recorded a finding that the challenge to the order of punishment did not call for interference. In our powers for judicial review against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we do not see an error apparent on the face of the record to hold that the Tribunal erred manifestly and, therefore, this petition must fail at the threshold. The petition is rejected summarily.
