VIMAL KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by one Vimal Kumar, who happened to be a leather worker (Class IV employee) in Ordinance Equipment Factories Kanpur for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad dated 16.7.1997 in Original Application No. 490 of 1993 and orders dated 16.9.1992 and 25.1.1992 (annexure Nos. 6.5 and 4 to the writ petition). He has further prayed for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 25.1.1992 and to pay all back wages. Before the Central Administrative tribunal the order of the disciplinary authority dated 25.1.1992 dismissing the petitioner from service and order dated 16.9.1992 of the appellate authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal were challenged. The Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that it was not a fit case where the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority should be interfered with.

(2.) We have heard Sri A.B.L.Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.C.Sinha, Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed on 9.11.1981 as a temporary leather worker in Ordinance Equipment Factories Kanpur and later on he has been confirmed on the said post. It is also brought on record that he has heavy liability to maintain his large family consisting of his wife, children and old ailing parents from his poor salary and due to want of proper nourishment the family members were not having good health. It is also averred that the petitioner could not attend his duties since 8.11.1990 to 21.12.1990 due to serious illness of his wife and for this he has been charge sheeted and the charge sheet was issued on 1.2..1991, a copy of the charge sheet has been annexed as annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and brought on record of the writ petition through supplementary affidavit dated 26.4.2006. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that perhaps the enquiry about charges of absence for the period i.e. 6.11.1989 to 13.12.1989 and 8.11.1990 to 21.12.1990, were started in very closed proximity. The petitioner was punished for the absence from 6.11.1989 to 13.12.1989 by withholding two increments permanently. It is stated that the punishment order was passed on 23.1.1991 and immediately thereafter on 1.2.1991 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner with regard to absence from duty since 8.11.1990 to 21.12.1990. From the perusal of the record as contained in writ petition and counter affidavits it appears that the court of enquiry for the first time assembled on 9.4.1991 consisting of Sri Sukhlal, Foreman, enquiry officer, Sri D.S. Awasthi, presenting officer and Sri Vinaya Kumar, T.N. 132/L.C.S. and the enquiry officer has asked certain questions from the petitioner. The details of those questions are given below:- ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..