UNION OF INDIA Vs. M KARUNANIDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and other subordinate officers against the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in original application No.457 of 2005. THE said original application was filed by the present respondent No. 1, challenging the order of removal dated 5.9.2000, removing him from the post of SG Mail-man under the present petitioner No.2. THE order of removal was passed on the ground that the concerned employee had remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period, without taking any prior permission and without filing any application. In the departmental proceedings, initially the employee had remained absent. But, subsequently, after he had appeared, he had not taken any specific stand, but simply admitted his absence and had prayed for license. However, the departmental authority thought it fit to remove him from service. THEreafter, the original application was filed, along with an application for condoning the delay. THE Tribunal condoned the delay. THE main ground in the petition for condonation of delay was to the effect that the petitioner had lost his mental balance for quite a long period, as his wife had deserted him and he had to look after two minor daughters, minor son and aged mother. It is also apparent from the observation of the Tribunal that even at times, the petitioner was going away from his house without informing anybody and he was being secured by the relatives and the well wishers. In this back ground, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had lost his mental balance for quite sometime and therefore, instead of order of removal, the punishment should be reduced to one of compulsory retirement so that the person would be able to draw some retirement benefits. It is also to be noted that prior to the order of removal, the petitioner had worked for 22 years as Mail-man and overall period of about 32 years. Having regard to all these aspects, the Tribunal taking an overall and obviously humanitarian view of the matter has modified the order of punishment.

(3.) IN course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted showing the details of the amount payable to the first re'spondent. The learned counsel for the peti"tioners has submitted details of Eligible Pension payable to the first respondent, which is extracted hereunder: