HEMANTA KUMAR TRIPATY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated February 26, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative tribunal in O. A. No. 131 of 2000 dismissing the O. A. filed by the petitioner challenging the order of removal from service dated December 25,1999 and the order dated February 25,2000 rejecting his departmental appeal with a prayer for reinstatement in service with all consequential service benefits is under challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed that the charge sheet in the departmental proceeding was issued on march 31,1995 to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Central administrative Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 253 of 1997 for quashing of the charge sheet but the tribunal vide order dated July 8,1999 declined to quash the charge sheet. However, the tribunal directed to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of that order, if the same had not been completed and the petitioner was directed to co-operate in the proceeding. Thereafter, the enquiry proceeded and by order dated december 25,1999 passed by the Deputy Chief engineer-opposite party No. 3, the petitioner was removed from service. Against the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer, which was rejected by order dated February 25, 2000. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred O. A. No. 131 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, cuttack which was rejected by order dated february 26, 2001. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) A plea was taken by the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given tq him and no intimation was received by him regarding the conduct of the enquiry on December 29 and 30, 1997. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that during the enquiry proceedings, notices were issued to the petitioner to attend the proceedings on december 29, 1997 and December 30, 1997. However, the records produced by the opposite parties before this Court did not show receipt of any notice by the petitioner of the conduct of the proceedings on December 29 and 30,1997. On this, we granted opportunity to the learned senior counsel for the opposite parties to produce the documents to show that intimation to conduct the enquiry on December 29, 2007 was received by the petitioner. In spite of time being granted on several occasions, the acknowledgement of the notice could not be produced. On January 9, 2006, Ashok mohanty, learned seniors counsel, made a submission that the department tried their best to search out if any intimation was sent to the petitioner intimating him regarding the conduct of the enquiry on December 29, 1997 and december 30, 1997 but the same was not available on record. Therefore, presuming that no intimation was sent to the petitioner intimating him that the enquiry was to be conducted on December 29, 1997 and december 30, 1997, we are of the opinion that no adequate opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to defend himself in the departmental proceeding.

(3.) IN view of the above, the departmental proceeding conducted from December 29,1997 as well as the punishment of removal and the order passed in appeal and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal are liable to be quashed.