UNION OF INDIA Vs. M.I. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Assistant Solicitor General as well as Mr.Hariraj representing the respondent. It is not in dispute that O.A.No.148 of 2012 was filed by respondent herein challenging disciplinary action on the ground of delay. Without expressing any opinion, Tribunal proceeded to grant 3 months time from 22.03.2012, having regard to the fact that respondent would retire on 30.09.2012. However, paragraph 3 of the order dated 22.03.2012 reads as under:-

(2.) APPARENTLY , an application came to be filed for enlargement of time for disposal of the disciplinary proceedings which came to be rejected as per Ext.P4 order. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits, if two weeks time is granted, the entire proceedings would come to an end and it is open to the respondent to fight the same on merits and not on technical grounds. Tribunal said enlargement of time fixed in the order cannot be granted as it is a conditional order. However, one has to see that on merits no order came to be passed by Tribunal either on Original Application or in the Miscellaneous Application. It is always open to the respondent to challenge the same on merits, if it is not correct according to her.