UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2004, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No.557 of 2000 (Smt. Sulochna Devi vs. Union of India and Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by respondent no.2 herein, in the capacity of the widow of late b D Thakur, had been allowed, the order of removal from service of the employee has been set aside with consequential benefits.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. B D Thakur, the late husband of respondent no.2 herein, had joined the services of the Indian Railways on 22.3.1965, as a Switch Man. He availed sanctioned leave from 26.2.1997 to 31.5.1997. He did not report for duty on 1.6.97, leading to the charge-sheet dated 12.2.1998, for major penalty, inter alia, alleging therein that he was on unauthorized leave from 1.6.1997 to 12.2.1998. The employee did not appear before the learned enquiry officer who submitted his ex-parte enquiry report dated 21.9.98. It further appears that copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the employee along with communication dated 20.11.98 (Annexure 3), calling him upon to submit his explanation. The employee failed to submit any reply to the enquiry report leading to the order of removal from service dated 22.2.99 (Annexure 4 ). It is further stated in the writ petition that he had reported for duties on 28.12.98, he was allowed to resume his duties on 7.1.99, and continued as such till 11.3.99. The employee was sent for safety training during this period.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question whether or not the employee was mentally sick and was undergoing treatment, is entirely a question of fact which should have been proved before the learned enquiry officer. The employee did not appear at all before the learned enquiry officer. He next submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in concluding that copy of the enquiry report was not served on the employee. He next submits that the order of removal from service was served on him during the period he was on duty notwithstanding which he did not prefer appeal till his death. He next submits that, on the own showing of respondent no.2, he was once again on unauthorized leave from 12.3.99, till his death on 5.12.99. He lastly submits that the relief granted by the Tribunal to respondent no.2 is a case of misplaced sympathy. He relies on the judgment of a single Judge of this Court delivered by one of us (S K Katriar, J.), in Ram Dani Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 2007 4 PLJR 332].