RUPANANDA BHAISAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dismissing O.A. No. 1187 of 1992 filed by the petitioner. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are as follows:

(2.) We have heard Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mishra learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railways (opposite party No. 2 to 4). The facts stated above are not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never been communicated either about the initiation of the disciplinary or about the revisional order passed by opposite party No. 4. Thus, he could not know either about initiation of the disciplinary proceeding or about the order passed by the revisional authority under Annexure-3. The petitioner being an illiterate person, was earning his livelihood as a labourer by travelling to different places, after the order of removal from service was passed. The petitioner remained absent from duty due to un-avoidable circumstances mentioned in detail in the revision petition. Thus, he prayed to set aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 so also order of removal from service under Annexure-1 and prayed for de novo enquiry into the allegation of un-authorised absence made against him. He further prayed to provide him an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceeding.'