UNION OF INDIA Vs. M.CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition had been filed challenging order dated 05-11-2018 in OA No.496/2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The original application was filed by one Mr. M. Chandran challenging an order of suspension and the delay in disciplinary action. The Tribunal by an interim order dated 22-06-2018 directed reinstatement of the applicant with all consequential benefits within 90 days after the date of Annexure-A2. Pursuant to the said order the applicant was reinstated in service. In the meantime the respondents filed OP (CAT) No.148/2018 before this court challenging the said interim order dated 22-06-2018 in the original application. An interim order was passed by this court staying the operation of the said order. In the meantime, when O.A No.496/2018 came up for hearing before the Tribunal, it was brought to notice of the Tribunal that after the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer, namely the applicant, he was terminated from service. It is brought to our notice that the applicant had filed another original application challenging the order of termination which is pending consideration before the Tribunal. Having taken note of the fact that the applicant was terminated from service, the Tribunal closed the original application, however issued a further order stating the interim orders are made absolute, subject to the final decision in O.P (CAT) referred above. When OP (CAT) No.148/2018 came up for hearing on 08-03-2019 the said fact had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench. It is further observed that since the interim order had merged with the final order and the petitioners can assail the final order, the interim order can also be challenged.

(2.) Heard Sri. M.A. Shafik, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Apparently when the order of suspension had ultimately resulted in an order of dismissal and the said order came to be challenged, nothing further had arisen for consideration in OA No.496/2018. As far as the interim orders are concerned, there was no necessity to make such orders absolute, since subsequent to the interim order the delinquent officer had been terminated from service. Therefore, that part of the interim order which directs that the interim orders are made absolute, subject to the final decision in O.P (CAT) No.148/2018 was totally unnecessary. We therefore set aside the said portion of the said order. As far as the rights of the applicant in OA No.496/2018 are concerned all issues raised by him shall be considered in the pending original application filed against the disciplinary action. With the above modification to the impugned order this original petition is partly allowed.