BASANTI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner. This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 12.10.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application No. 67/2007 filed by petitioner, has been dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

(2.) PETITIONER 's husband R.L. Meena was appointed as Booking Clerk and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Commercial Superintendent. He remained willfully absent from duty, therefore, a charge -sheet was served upon him. As per para -16 of the order of the Tribunal, husband of petitioner did not file any reply to charge -sheet. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal of service on 03.05.2000. No appeal was preferred within a period of limitation by the deceased -Government servant. The order of removal from service was challenged after a period of 3 years without any application for condonation of delay. (This fact has been mentioned in para -16 of the order of the Tribunal itself, which has not been controverted by the learned counsel for petitioner also.) The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dt. 13.02.2004. It appears that the deceased -Government servant preferred a review petition in his life time on 05.03.2004. During pendency of the review petition, husband of the petitioner died on 10.06.2004. The Reviewing Authority, looking to the special circumstance and the fact that the Government servant has died, took a lenient view and converted the order of penalty of removal from service into an order of compulsory retirement, vide order dt. 28.02.2005. The said order was not challenged by the legal representatives of the deceased including the petitioner till December, 2007. The family pension papers were prepared. Petitioner was having full knowledge about the penalty of compulsory retirement. The present Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal on or about 04.12.2007, challenging the order of compulsory retirement. During pendency of the Original Application, an application was also filed for amendment in the Original Application, whereby relief for compassionate appointment was also added. The learned Tribunal, after examining the case, dismissed the Original Application being barred by limitation as well as on merits also.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and examined the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.