V.J.MALIWAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 27.11.2002 and 15.1.2003 passed in Original Application No.255 of 1999 and Review Application No.06 of 2003 respectively by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, and it is prayed to treat the petitioner as having been reinstated in service from 18.2.1998 till his deemed date of retirement on 31.1.2006 and to pay him all back-wages and all consequential and retirement benefits with interest @ 18% p.a.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:-

(3.) Mr.Khurana, learned advocate for the petitioner, while referring to various Rules and the material placed on record, has vehemently submitted that DPO is not the competent authority to initiate any inquiry against the delinquent and DRM is the competent authority. He has also contended that in this case as per Annexure-D, page 49, the charge sheet has been issued by DPO-BRC, instead of DRM and, therefore, there is a clear breach of mandatory provisions. He has also contended that, in the entire inquiry, the principles of natural justice have been violated and no proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the delinquent and he being the junior- most has been removed from service, whereas other persons, who were also involved in the matter have been let off. He has also contended that without any preliminary inquiry, the charge sheet has been issued to the delinquent. He has also contended that during the inquiry, the delinquent has asked for copies of documents, which have not been provided and without affording an opportunity of being heard he has been removed from service and no compensatory pension has been granted to the delinquent. He has also contended that pensionary benefit ought to have been granted immediately and DCRG as well as provident fund amount ought to have been granted to the delinquent. But, in this case during the pendency of this petition, the amount of insurance and provident fund has been paid but no other pensionary benefit has been paid to the heirs of the delinquent, who has died during the pendency of the petition. While referring to the documentary evidence, he submitted that even before removal of the delinquent from service, no removal memo was issued. He has also contended that, from the very beginning, the deceased was demanding pensionary benefits but no pensionary benefit has been granted to him, though he has served for more than 26 years in the department. While referring to the impugned order of the Tribunal, he has submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the various aspects which were raised by the petitioner and the Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the application, against which present petition has been filed. He has prayed to allow present petition and also prayed to grant all consequential benefits.