JAMOTRI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 with the following relief(s):

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents have filed their reply and through reply it was indicated that the two dates for personal hearing on 17.4.2003 and 30.7.2003 were fixed by enquiry officer and applicant was informed about it but he did not attended the enquiry. Subsequently, another date was fixed on 22.8.2003 and the applicant attended the enquiry and thereafter, the next date for regular hearing was fixed on 26.9.2003, 14.11.2003, 12.12.2003, 9.1.2004 and 30.1.2004. Since the husband of the applicant did not attended the inquiry as such, the ex parte enquiry proceedings were started from 9.1.2004 and the statements of three witnesses were recorded. The applicant was again informed about the date fixed on 30.1.2004 and again he fail to appear and after the number of opportunities given to the applicant, the case was closed from prosecution side and the enquiry officer submitted the report. After submission of the report, the Disciplinary Authority has also passed the order and the appeal of the applicant's husband was also decided during his life time and the decision was also duly communicated to him. Not only this, the respondents have also denied the receipt of any representation dated 30.9.2005 and it is also pointed out that since the appeal of the applicant was duly received by the ex -employee on 14.8.2005 as such, there was no occasion for the ex -employee to make a representation on 30.9.2005. The learned Counsel for the respondents has also filed supplementary affidavit and through supplementary affidavit, the respondents have reiterated the averments made in the counter reply. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon certain decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court such as: Union of India v. Upendra Singh, : 1994 (2) SLJ 77 (SC) : 1994 (3) SCC 357, State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Ayub Naaz, : 2006 (2) SLJ 179 (SC) : 2006 (1) SCC 589, State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, : 2010 (2) SLJ 59 (SC) : 2010 (2) SCC 772, B.C. Chaturvedi v. U.O.I. & Ors., : 1995 (6) SCC 749 and pointed out that the scope of judicial review in the matter relating to the departmental proceedings is limited and the Court should not normally interfere where there is no procedural lapses in the enquiry.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.