DINESH KUMAR Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.07.2009 and 21.04.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal). The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

(2.) WE have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. In O.A. No. 1829/2009, which was decided on 21.07.2009, the petitioner claimed that certain documents had not been supplied to him. The Tribunal after examining those documents found them to be extremely vague, some of them being the documents pertaining to proceedings under the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the aforesaid documents would show the malicious intentions of the respondents in proceeding against him. The Tribunal, however, did not find any substance in the contention. It was noted that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer and the plea of mala fides had not been established. The Tribunal also did not believe the claim of the petitioner that the Inquiry Report was not supplied to him. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that in his letter dated 04.05.2009 alleging non -receipt of Inquiry Report, the petitioner had falsely claimed that he had not even been informed of the reasons for holding the departmental inquiry whereas in fact, he had received the memorandum of charge and also sent replies dated 19.08.2008 and 06.10.2008, denying the charges. The Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner had not been truthful in the matter. It was also held by the Tribunal that the petitioner had not availed the remedy of appealing against the order of the disciplinary authority and no grounds had been adduced for not filing the appeal in view of the provisions contained in Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the application was not admissible.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing before us, the petitioner could point out no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. He did not dispute that not only was the charge -sheet received by him, he had also replied to it on 19.08.2008 and 06.10.2008 as is noted in the order dated 26.06.2009 whereby he was dismissed from service. He did not dispute that he did not participate in the inquiry, despite having an opportunity to do so. He did not bring to our notice any communication asking for documents in order to enable him to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer. In order to succeed, the petitioner was required to satisfy us that he had asked for certain documents, which were relevant to the charges against him and non -supply of those documents had prevented him from defending himself before the Inquiry Officer or otherwise prejudiced him. The petitioner, however, has not been able to do so. When we asked the petitioner as to why he did not participate in the inquiry, he had no plausible answer to give. When we asked him as to why he did not take charge of the Library at ARC Doomdooma and why he did not join ARC Doomdooma after availing earned leave for 13 years, the only answer given by the petitioner was that the officers at ARC Doomdooma were indulging in corruption and he apprehended a threat to his life. However, there is absolutely no material on record to indicate any threat to the life of the petitioner at ARC Doomdooma. Even if there was any such threat, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to lodge a report with the police in this regard, but, he could not have refused to join his duties at ARC Doomdooma merely because he apprehended threat to his life if he went to Doomdooma. In any case, the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer to substantiate the plea taken by him to justify his absence from duty. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention.