SHIV LAL AVASTHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.2.1999 dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the application for quashing the charge memo dated 9.8.1988 and the order dated 19.1.1994. He also prayed for quashing the order of suspension dated 12.7.1988 with a declaration that he be treated as on duty with full pay for the period from 12.7.1988 to 28.8.1989. Facts of the case briefly are as follows.

(2.) During the tenure of the petitioner as Chief Ticket Inspector in the Northern Railway at Jodhpur, he applied for allotment of quarter No.T- 64A on 20.6.1986. According to him, he required the quarter for treatment of his ailing wife. Case of the petitioner is that on 1.7.1988, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent allotted him the said quarter with the approval of the Divisional Railway Manager. On 12.7.1988, however all on a sudden he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and on 9.8.1988 a charge memo was issued to him. The petitioner filed O.A. No.17/89 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench for quashing the departmental proceeding. In the meantime, on 21.8.1989 the order of suspension was revoked but without prejudice to the ongoing enquiry. On 24.8.1993, the O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner makes representation for regularisation of the period from 12.7.1988 to 21.8.1989, the same may be disposed of on merit by a speaking order. It is important to mention here that during pendency of the said application in the Tribunal, the petitioner retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.9.1992.

(3.) In the light of the said order of the Tribunal, on 6.9.1993 the petitioner filed representation. On 28.10.1993, copy of the inquiry report dated 19.12.1989 was sent to him by Divisional Railway Manager. As per the letter, copy of the report was not sent earlier as the matter was sub-judice in the Tribunal. It may be mentioned that in the enquiry the Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner was substantiated. On receipt of the said letter dated 28.10.1993, the petitioner sent a reply on 5.11.1993 stating that he was not aware of the facts stated in the report, all that he could say was that he had been properly allotted the railway quarter and that the charge memo had been issued with mala fide intention. He also stated that the ex parte enquiry conducted by Shri B.P. Misra, the then A.C.S., Jodhpur was not in accordance with rules; the petitioner had never informed by the Inquiry Officer about the dates as the case was pending before the Tribunal. On 20.11.1993, the petitioner sent another letter challenging the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority. On 19.1.1994, the impugned order was passed which may be quoted as under: