AMRIK SINGH LONGIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and has challenged order dated 4.9.2009 (P.8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dismissing his OA No. 807-CH 2007. He was working as a Clerk under the respondent and was transferred vide order dated 25.10.1978 but he did not obey the same and was awarded punishment of removal from service vide order dated 30.11.1982. THE Tribunal vide order dated 1.1.1988 while deciding his TA No. 168 of 1986 quashed the order dated 30.11.1982 removing him from service. THE respondents were, however, directed to reconsider the question of quantum of punishment. After some litigation the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 30.11.1982 vide order dated 19.12.1990. THE claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that no order of penalty has ever been passed and therefore no pecuniary punishment could be inflicted upon him. THE Tribunal after taking into account the rival stand of the parties, firstly concluded that the order imposing penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was passed on 18/23.11.1993. It is evident that view of the Tribunal is based on the endorsement No. 3299 on the communication dated 23.11.1993 (P.3).

(2.) ACCORDING to the endorsement, the Superintending Engineer had sent a copy of the order to the Deputy Controller (F&A) Rents, Chandigarh Administration for information and necessary action. However, the petitioner racked up the matter in the year 2001 when he was intimated that appeal against the order of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was required to be filed within a mandatory period of 45 days. The petitioner again raked up the matter in the year 2006-07 when he was called for personal hearing.The pay fixation order dated 4.5.2001 clearly indicates that his two increments with cumulative effect were stopped vide letter dated 23.11.1993. The Tribunal rejected the version of the petitioner that no order imposing punishment of stoppage of increment was passed and also that the petitioner was trying to avail the adventurous benefit of an error which have taken place during the preparation of the documents. The Tribunal has found that besides the fact that the order stopping increment with cumulative effect which is in lieu of the earlier order of removal from service could not be challenged after such a long time particularly when his pay was fixed on 4.5.2001 stopping his increment with cumulative effect.