RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was offered an appointment as a Group 'D' employee i.e. Safai Karamchari in Kendriya Vidhyalaya, I.T.B.P., Sarhan on 30.7.1997. He applied for earned leave on 4.7.2002 for three days. He however did not report back for duty till 27.7.2002. In the meantime, a show cause notice had been issued to him on 25.7.2002. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the same. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued to him on 12.8.2002. Thereafter, an ex parte enquiry was conducted against him. The ex parte enquiry was conducted on the basis of the report of the post office that the show cause notice could not be served on the petitioner. The remarks made by the postal authority are "IS NAAM KA HAZIR NAHI HAI". Relying on the ex parte enquiry report, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 3.9.2002. It was observed that the petitioner had lost the lien on the post, under Article 81(d)(6) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidhyalaya.

(2.) Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2003. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 25.1.2003 seeking reconsideration of the decision. The request was repeated by the petitioner on 30.1.2003. Ultimately, when no decision was taken by the respondents, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal on 3.9.2005. Alongwith the Original Application, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay of 621 days in filing the Original Application. The O.A. has been dismissed by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench on the ground that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It has been held that each and every days' delay has to be explained.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was meiitorious and would have been accepted only on the ground that the petitioner had not been supplied a copy of the enquiry report before the order of punishment was passed. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar A.I.R. 1993(5) S.C. 533.