UNION OF INDIA Vs. M.BIKSHAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, a common order, dated 16.04.2012, passed by Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.227 of 2011 and batch is challenged.

(2.) The sole respondent in the respective writ petitions filed the O.As., assailing the charge memos, dated 23.02.2011, issued to them, proposing to conduct enquiry into the alleged acts of misconduct. The gist of the proceedings is that the respondents were functioning as casual labourers with temporary status in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. During the course of enquiry for regularization of the services of the persons working with temporary status, it was noticed that the documents on the basis of which the respondents are functioning were fabricated. Thereupon, the proceedings were initiated and the respondents were removed from service in the year 1998. A batch of O.As., were filed by the respondents alleging that they have been removed from service without conducting any enquiry. The O.As., were allowed and the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondents, leaving it open to the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law.

(3.) A criminal complaint was also filed against the respondents and two others and it was tried as C.C.No.1051 of 2005 by the Court of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar alleging offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The trial Court convicted the respondents herein through judgment, dated 21.11.2005. In Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2005 filed by them, the Court of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District allowed the appeal through judgment, dated 11.12.2009, on technical grounds even while holding that the respondents submitted fabricated documents for securing employment. After the criminal proceedings assumed finality, the petitioners issued charge memos to the respective respondents. The principal ground urged by the respondents herein before the Tribunal was that there was undue delay in initiating proceedings, and issuance of charge memos at this length of time, cannot be sustained in law.