JAYA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHAMBHU KUMAR BANSFORE EX-HELPER SAFAIWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband of the petitioner Late Shambhu Kumar Bansfore was an ex-helper Safaiwala working in North Eastern Railway posted at Siwan. The Court is informed that he was a compassionate appointee. He came to be dismissed from service vide order dated 22.02.2005 passed by the respondent authority of the railways after regular departmental proceeding was initiated against him for prolonged absence without proper information or leave granted to him. Since no evidence as way of defence was produced on behalf of the husband of the petitioner, the punishment of removal was held to be in order even by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The revisional order was passed on 12.09.2007. It emerges from the order of the Tribunal that a fresh application which was a kind of mercy appeal was filed in the year 2008 which too was dismissed informing him that there was nothing pending before the railway authorities since all his appeal and revision stood disposed of years ago. Husband of the petitioner died on 12.12.2013. His wife was substituted by the order of the Tribunal on 25.03.2014.

(2.) Considering the submissions made and after giving due consideration to the materials produced, it emerges that the defence of the husband of the petitioner that he was absent because of compulsion of illness within his family or himself was not corroborated by any kind of proof of any treatment having been obtained from any quarter; muchless the railway hospital. Husband of the petitioner was given all the opportunities during the course of enquiry. He was tendered copy of the enquiry report as well. Thereafter the order of removal was passed on 22.02.2005.

(3.) The Tribunal has taken the factum of a belated kind of application filed as O.A. 273 of 2012 as also one of the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner keeping in mind that last of the order in revision was passed in the year 2007 and mercy application or its rejection or information relating to disposal of the earlier application cannot give rise to a cause of action. Therefore, the delay of almost five years is quite unexplained.