HARSANT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') on 9.2.2007, whereby the Original application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), for setting aside of the order dated 28/29.7.1997, was dismissed being barred by limitation.

(2.) The petitioner joined the District Treasury Office under the Chandigarh Administration as a Clerk on 1.1.1967. She was appointed as Section Officer after she qualified SAS Examinations in November, 1979. While posted as Assistant Treasury Officer in Treasury Office, Chandigarh, she proceeded on Ex India Leave in October, 1994, which was sanctioned upto 8.1.1995 and extended upto 8.2.1995, but thereafter, the petitioner did not join the duties and sought extension of leave on medical grounds. Since the petitioner was abstaining from duties, proceedings under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') were initiated and ultimately an order of dismissal was passed on 28/29.7.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order in the year 2004, which was declined being barred by time vide communication dated 16.9.2004. It was thereafter that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by way of filing of an Original Application, which has been dismissed vide the order impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she has submitted a notice dated 13.5.1997 to seek voluntary retirement, which was forwarded by the District Treasury Officer to the Administration on 6.6.1997. The petitioner has pleaded (para 8 of the writ petition) that she came to know about the issuance of the notice dated 3.6.1997 appearing in "The Tribune" through her relative. The said notice was to the effect that the inquiry was held against the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Rules and the petitioner has been found guilty. It is further pleaded that she was dismissed from service vide order dated 28/29.7.1997 and when she came to know about her dismissal order, she filed appeal/representation dated 9.9.1997. Such representation has been appended as Annexure P-5. The petitioner has asked for certain documents on the ground that such documents have not been supplied and also authorised Shri Charanjit Singh to obtain the documents from the Administration. A communication was addressed to the petitioner on 11.12.1997 (Annexure P-6) which is to the effect that all the documents asked for by the petitioner were sent on her given address. Even the order relating to rejection of the leave of the petitioner; appointment of the Inquiry Officer against the charges of misconduct; misbehaviour levelled against the petitioner and dismissal order were also published in the leading Newspapers. It has come on record that such documents were, in fact, received by Shri Charanjit Singh on 27.1.1998. An affidavit in support of receipt of the documents, has been appended by the respondents with the reply as Annexure R-8.