MAHESH PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B.

(2.) With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for hearing.

(3.) By this writ petition, judgment dated 24th August, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.A 668/1998 in OA 744/1997 is assailed. By the said M.A, the learned Tribunal declined to condone the delay in institution of the OA and dismissed the same as barred by limitation. Petitioner had been engaged with the Railways as a Casual Worker. He was removed from service after being found guilty in an enquiry for securing engagement on the basis of fabricated and forged documents. enquiry Officer further held that he had not worked during the period, to be entitled to temporary status. In the present OA, we are concerned with challenge to the removal from service. The Disciplinary Authority had removed the petitioner from service agreeing with the findings of the enquiry report, vide orders dated 11th October, 1994. Against the order of removal from service, he preferred an appeal on 18th November, 1994. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 9th February, 1995. It is the petitioner's case that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority were not sent to him but addressed to Loco Foreman under whom the petitioner was working. Hence the petitioner remained under the impression that his appeal had not been disposed of even though the order was passed on 9th February, 1995. Petitioner came to know of the dismissal of appeal in the first week of April, 1995 when he received the order on 18th April, 1995. We may note here that OA in question was preferred on 11th April, 1997.