LAKSHMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and have perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short 'Tribunal'] made in OA.No.8 of 2003 dated 12.9.2003 and has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE official respondent has filed a reply and stated that the delay was due to the reason that the matter was taken by the Central Vigilance Commission and their concurrence was obtained and it took some time for getting the said order. But however, in the present case, the petitioner was aware of charges as a show cause memo was given in the year 1992 itself. THE Tribunal held that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner due to the six years delay and that in the present case, there was no need to follow elaborate procedure and the petitioner had also submitted her written statement for the enquiry report.