JYOTI ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel Mr M.S. Trivedi, for the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned decision dated 21.1.2011 passed in O.A. No.303 of 2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court by way of the present Special Civil Application.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Store-Khalasi in the construction branch of the respondents. He was served with charge sheet dated 20.5.2002 for remaining absent unauthorisedly from 26.12.2001 to 20.5.2002. THE said charge sheet was served to the petitioner after three years i.e. in September, 2005. THE petitioner had denied the charge levelled against him vide communication dated 29.9.2005. THE Inquiry Officer had conducted ex-parte inquiry and had submitted report and on the basis of the said report, the respondent had issued NIP (Notice of Imposition of Penalty) dated 3.10.2006 removing him from service. THE petitioner had preferred appeal against the said order which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground of delay as the said appeal was forwarded through Mr M.S. Trivedi, Advocate, Gujarat High Court and accordingly the decision was conveyed to the employee's advocate vide office letter dated 6.8.2007. Against the said order, the petitioner filed O.A. No.113 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). THE respondents were directed to decide the said appeal as per the directions given in OA No.113 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. THE Appellate Authority, after going through the entire record, rejected the appeal vide order dated 20.4.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had not decided the said Appeal till date and so the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 303 of 2010.

(3.) CONSIDERING the above, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the plea raised by the respondents in its reply has not been controverted by filing the rejoinder-affidavit by the petitioner/applicant. The Tribunal has also observed that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by suppressing the material facts and in our view, the said observations appear to be correct as per the conduct of the petitioner as narrated above and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. To us, it appears that without any justification, the petitioner wants to start second round of litigation and considering his conduct, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the OA No.303/2010. We are of the considered opinion that there appears no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 303/2010 and the Special Civil Application No.9282/2011 deserves to be rejected.