UNION OF INDIA Vs. S MUTHURAMASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. M. Venugopal, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. R. Malaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

(2.) EVEN though the matter is listed for considering the question of vacating the order of interim stay, since the very same question is involved in the writ petition, with the consent of Counsel appearing for both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal on merits.

(3.) THE 1st respondent, who was employed under the present petitioners as a Postal Assistant, had applied for grant of leave for few days and thereafter, for extension of such leave through telegraphic communication. However, subsequently, he did not rejoin nor had prayed for any further extension of leave. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on account of such unauthorized absence. However, the notices relating to the departmental proceeding could not be actually served on him, on account of the fact that the 1st respondent had shifted his residence to some other place, without furnishing the details of such address to the Department. Be that as it may, ultimately, an order of removal from service was passed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed O. A. No. 48 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended by him therein that he had remained absent on account of his mental illness (Schizophrenia) and it was further submitted by him that the departmental proceeding notices had not been served on him and as such, he did not have the opportunity of explaining his point of view.