UNION OF INDIA Vs. C V ANANTHARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The Union of India and another filed this Writ Petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.4.2006 in O.A. No.852 of 2004, wherein the Tribunal after considering the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, reserved the matter for orders and again the matter was posted for "being mentioned" and or misrepresenting the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harendra Arara and Another, 2001 (3) CTC 176 : 2001 (6) SCC 392, relied on by the petitioners herein/respondents, allowed the said Original Application, directing reinstatement of the first respondent herein with full back wages.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the Ruling of the Apex Court in the above said judgment. Further, without giving a categorical finding as to the prejudice shown by the first respondent, as per the said decision, except saying so, allowed the Original Application illegally. When the first respondent/applicant has not participated in the enquiry, the petitioners have no other option except conducting the ex-parte enquiry and based on which, the order of punishment was imposed for his long unauthorised absence from service. THErefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners/respondents is that while notice was issued to participate in the enquiry on 15.11.2001, he has not participated in the enquiry and therefore ex-parte enquiry was conducted on the same set of facts. Though opportunity was given to the first respondent, since he has not cooperated or participated in the enquiry, the petitioners were left with no other option except to hold ex-parte enquiry and it was not practicable to hold an enquiry. THErefore, the order is sustainable in law.