MULABHAI N CHAVDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V.H.Makwana, HGC, falsely showing these wagons to be holding contents of Broad Guage Wagons of CR 90178 Ex KRH to BVC. By this act, the petitioner made delivery of excess coal to the consignee and that he loaded one other extra Metre Guage wagon of extra coal to the consignee with similar modus operandi exhibiting doubtful integrity and devotion to duty. Finally, order of removal from service was passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 27.7.1993. Appeal against the order was filed, rejected by the appellate authority in March 1994. The petitioner filed O.A.No.518 of 1994. CAT found that petitioner had not exhausted departmental remedy by filing revision application, therefore, he was asked to file the same within three weeks, the respondents to dispose of the same within six weeks thereafter. Accordingly, Original Application was disposed of by order dated 10.10.1994. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision petition before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager on 20.10.1994. It was disposed of vide order dated 28.12.1994. The revisional authority confirmed the order of appellate authority. Therefore, petitioner filed Original Application No.608 of 1998 before CAT.

(2.) Respondents took objection that original application was not filed within prescribed period under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and M.A.No.736 of 2003 for condonation of delay in filing the O.A.No.608 of 1998 was filed in December 2003 after objection was taken in reply by respondents. The grounds for condonation of delay were vague, therefore, could not be accepted, more so, when direction to petitioner was to file revision before Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Vadodara. Therefore, filing of revision application before the General Manager, Western Railway, and waiting for reply was not justified.

(3.) These submissions were considered by CAT which found that O.A. was barred by time counted from 28.12.1994. The petitioner was directed to file revision application before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager and not before General Manager. Therefore, Additional Divisional Railway Manager decided the same on 28.12.1994; preferring revision before General Manager was not justified in the absence of direction by the Tribunal. Tribunal orders were clear and there was no confusion when the petitioner sent revision application to Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Vadodara, on October 20, 1994. Further, CAT had extended liberty to petitioner to approach it in the event he felt aggrieved by the decision of Additional Divisional Railway Manager. With this background, filing of revision to General Manager and waiting for decision was not justified. Claim that it was done at legal advise has been rejected on the basis that name of counsel giving wrong advise was not disclosed nor the date when advise was given. Substance of the matter is, CAT felt dissatisfied with the submissions advanced by petitioner for condonation of delay. Consequently, Original Application is held time barred, therefore, dismissed.