UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India for assailing the order dtd. 8/8/2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench whereby, the Original Application No. 290/00382/2018 with MA No. 290/258/2018 filed by respondent-applicant Shri Rakesh Kumar was accepted and a direction was issued to the petitioners to reinstate the respondentapplicant with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow:- The respondent-applicant was appointed as Fireman and was posted at 26, Ammunition Company, Jaisalmer w.e.f 15/2/2011. The petitioners-department issued a memorandum of charge sheet dtd. 16/5/2014 to the respondent-employee under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965) wherein he was charged with absence from duty without leave, disobedience of orders, intoxication during duty and altercation with staff. It is alleged that the memorandum of charge sheet was never served upon applicant. The inquiry officer conducted inquiry proceedings ex-parte against the respondent-employee holding him guilty of all the charges vide order dtd. 22/9/2015. The disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 21/7/2016 exercising powers conferred by Rule 15 CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 imposed penalty of removal from services upon the respondent-employee who preferred an Original Application against the order dtd. 21/7/2016 passed by disciplinary authority before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. The learned Tribunal, vide order dtd. 8/8/2019 allowed the OA and the impugned order dtd. 21/7/2016 was quashed and set aside with a further direction to reinstate the respondent-applicant in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Shri Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the employer-petitioners, contended that the OA was filed by the respondent-applicant after a period of more than one year from the date of order without sufficient explanation for the delay. Further, the OA was filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 24 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the OA ought to have been dismissed solely on these grounds. He further contended that the memorandum of charge sheet dtd. 16/5/2014, containing four charges, prepared under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was issued against applicant but the service thereof was deliberately avoided by the respondentapplicant. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the above mentioned charges vide order dtd. 21/8/2014. The notice of inquiry was duly issued and served but the respondent-applicant chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Thereupon, ex-parte inquiry proceedings were conducted by the inquiry officer on 21/10/2014. The report thereof was submitted to disciplinary authority for appropriate action vide letter dtd. 2/12/2014, holding the delinquent officer guilty of all the charges levelled against him. A memorandum dtd. 22/9/2015, containing proposal to impose punishment of removal from service along with requisite documents was sent to the respondent-employee who offered no response whatsoever.