MOHD. ALI HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Commercial Supervisor under the control of respondent No. 4 and was served a charge -sheet dated 08.05.2003 on 06.06.2003. The applicant denied the charges and stated that no intimation was ever given to him with regard to the appointment of Inquiry Officer and the venue and dates fixed for hearing by the Inquiry Officer. He came to know about the ex -parte disciplinary proceedings through a public notice published in daily news paper 'Dainik Jagran' on 05.12.2003. The applicant immediately made his efforts to contact respondent No. 4 at her office, but he was not allowed to meet the Disciplinary Authority in the chamber. He submitted his representation on 06.12.2003 to the respondent No. 4 which was duly received on 14.12.2003. In the said representation he pleaded that he had no notice about the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings and also prayed for payment of subsistence allowance as he was already suspended by the respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 23.12.2002. The respondent No. 4 did not pay any heed on his representation and passed the impugned order of removal on 14.01.2004 (Annexure A -1). The applicant filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No. 3, which was rejected by the impugned appellate order dated 11.06.2004 (Annexure A -2). The applicant filed Revision Petition dated 16.08.2004 and the respondent No. 2 rejected the said Revision Petition by modifying the punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement vide order dated 07.05.2005 (Annexure A -9). The applicant filed OA No. 607/06 and without entering into the merit of the case the Tribunal directed the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.04.2010 to reconsider the matter and pass reasoned and speaking order taking into account all the points raised by the applicant in his Revision Petition. The respondent No. 2 again rejected the Revision Petition and maintained the punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide impugned order dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure A -3). It has been submitted that the whole ex parte proceedings are bad in law as he was not informed about the date and place of such disciplinary proceedings and he was also not provided any copy of inquiry report and the Appellate Authority as well as Revisionary Authority have not considered the submissions made by the applicant in his Appeal and Revision.

(3.) IN the rejoinder, it has been submitted that the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the applicant was never informed about the appointment of Inquiry Officer and the dates and venue of the inquiry. The applicant remained present in his office at Izzatnagar, Bareilly since he was placed under suspension and attached there but he was not allowed to mark his attendance in the attendance register. The suspension order was also not served on the applicant till he reported for duty after availing the leave on 25.12.2002 and was spared on 26.12.2002 to attend the office of Disciplinary Authority at Izzatnagar on 27.12.2002. It has been denied that the suspension was revoked on the date when the charge -sheet was served i.e. on 06.06.2003 as no such revocation order was served on the applicant. The respondents conducted the inquiry ex parte whereas, the applicant remained present at Izatnagar and had been contacting the Inquiry Officer from time to time, but nothing was informed by the Inquiry Officer. The points raised by the applicant in his appeal and revision have not at all been dealt with by the respondents. It has further been submitted that the wife of the applicant was suffering with acute bleeding and her uterus was seriously affected. He got his wife examined in Government Hospital at Haldwani namely Dr. Sushila Tiwari Memorial Hospital as the modern facility of operation was not available in the Railway Hospital. His wife was admitted in the said hospital on 20.11.2002 and was operated on 21.11.2002 and discharged on 01.11.2002. It has been submitted that the applicant after availing the leave from 27.11.2002 to 21.12.2002 (25 days) joined his duty on 22.12.2002, but on the next day he was placed under suspension.