VIMLA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THE brief facts culled out from the records are that the petitioner was appointed on 03.09.1985 on compassionate ground on the post of Hindi typist in pay scale of Rs. 260-400 in the D.R.M. Office of North Central Railway (N.C.R.) Allahabad. Thereafter against a vacancy in operating Branch on the death of one Sri A.N.Kapoor working in the said post there she was posted in the Hindi Section vide order dated 18.11.1985 as typist (Hindi) and worked there up to 12.05.1999. The petitioner was thereafter transferred and relieved for joining in the Safety Department of the Railways. The matter being represented by her before the National Commission for SC/ST by which her transfer order was stayed directing the Railways to pay her salary in compliance of the interim order dated 23.07.1999 by the Commission.

(3.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order and judgement on the ground that the findings recorded by it which are not based on any document rather they are pervese and illegal. It is also submitted that the departmental inquiry proceedings having been held exparte is in violation of principles of natural justice and is liable tobe quashed. The judgement impugned is also challenged on the ground that the tribunal has not recorded as to what was the material before it on which it was satisfied that there is no denial of the provisions of natural justice in holding the inquiry as well as the basis for passing of the order of penalty and on the basis of which, the tribunal formed its opinion that there was no need to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 15.06.2004. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that petitioner Smt. Vimla Devi was appointed as typist in Grade II 260-400 on compassionate ground in Hindi Section against a vacancy of operating branch which vacancy became available due to death of Sri A.N.Kapoor. A demand was made by the safety branch due to which she was repatriated there but she did not report for duty and instead approached the National Commission for SC/ST. The matter of unauthorised absence was brought by the Railways to the notice of the Commission, requesting for a direction to the petitioner to report for duty and that she was not entitled to any relief on the ground of no work no pay during the period of her unauthorised absence. The petitioner was again asked to resume her duties but instead of complying the order, she remained absent unauthorisedly. In consequence thereof a charge sheet was issued to her. Regarding, affording of opportunity of hearing, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that she was served with notice to participate in the inquiry. However, despite the knowledge she did not choose to do so. Registered letters were also sent on the address of the petitioner which were received back with the remarks:-