MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. Vs. PREMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Pet. No.271/2014 & CM No. 10609/2015 We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this petition. The respondent is present in person. The counsel appointed by her was not appearing in the matter. In order to obviate any prejudice to the respondent, by an order dated 13th of May 2016, we had appointed Ms. Rekha Palli, learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae on her behalf, who is present in court.

(2.) We have heard Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Rekha Palli, learned Senior Counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the respondent, on this review petition. The petitioners have sought review of our order dated 29th of April 2014 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners whereby a challenge was laid to the order dated 22nd Aug., 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi accepting O.A. No. 3583/2012. As a result, the tribunal had set aside the order dated 25th April, 2011 passed by the disciplinary authority awarding penalty of compulsory retirement of the respondent Premwati from service as well as the order dated 15th of March 2012 of the appellate authority affirming the same.

(3.) The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are that the husband of the respondent was an employee of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (‘MTNL’ hereinafter). Consequent upon his death, the respondent was appointed as a regular majdoor on 12th Jan., 2000 on compassionate basis. Inter alia on grounds of her unauthorized and unexplained absence from duties, she was served with a charge memo dated 12th March, 2010 proposing to take disciplinary action against her under Clause 37 of the certified standing order of the MTNL. In order to substantiate the charge against her, the MTNL had relied on letters dated 9th July, 2008; 29th July, 2008; 7th Aug., 2008 and 12th Nov., 2009 (noted in para 3 of our order dated 29th April, 2014) which had been addressed to the respondent. Except the letter dated 12th Nov., 2009 which was addressed to the respondent at her residential address, the other letters appear to be addressed at her official address.