UNION OF INDIA Vs. JATASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE caveator is represented. Therefore, caveat notice is discharged.

(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 9th December, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.4279 of 2011. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are within a narrow compass. The respondent before us was appointed as casual labourer on the 23rd November, 1988 with the petitioners; was granted a temporary status in 1989 and his services were subsequently regularised. The admitted facts before us are that the respondent stopped attending his duties w.e.f. 31 st May, 1999. The respondent has contended that one of his relatives lodged a police complaint on 27th June, 1999 with the police station at Patiala with regard to his being missing. It is further claimed by the respondent that his wife and relative Chandrika Prasad made representations and informed the petitioners about this position. We may note that this fact was disputed on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) THE chargesheet sent to the petitioner by registered post was returned undelivered on 6th April, 2002 with the remark that "the person who has to receive it remains out without intimation. No hope that he will return, hence returned". Despite this remark, the chargesheet was pasted at the respondent's workplace on 3rd May, 2002 in the presence of three staff members.