UNION OF INDIA Vs. ABDUL KAREEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioners-Railways had questioned the order dated 21-1-2003 made in O.A. No.1428 of 1998 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' ) as bad, illegal, void and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners-Railways had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also contends that the very fact that for a long period of nine years, the absence was left unexplained properly, it can be taken that there was unauthorized absence without any justification and in the facts and circumstances, the order of termination was made. The learned Counsel would also submit that the alleged medical treatment or the medical certificates which had been relied upon by the respondents cannot be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and would comment that the constitutionality of Exception II of Rule 732 of Leave Rules had been adverted to by the Tribunal, though, it may not be necessary to go into that aspect, at all in the present context. The learned Counsel would comment that even otherwise, this question was not specifically raised nor the contention had been seriously canvassed. But, however, the Tribunal had gone into that aspect and made certain observations in this regard at Para 12 of the impugned order.

(3.) The learned Counsel would submit that at any rate, in the light of the reasons, which had been recorded while making order of termination, the question of holding any enquiry in this regard would not arise and definitely it cannot be said that the same is violative of Articles 311, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as had been observed by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel would conclude that in the light of the same, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.