LAWS(JHAR)-2012-6-10

MANOJ MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On June 20, 2012
MANOJ MAHTO Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 27.1.2005 passed in O.A. No. 1 of 2005, by which the petitioner's O.A. was dismissed. The petitioner is also aggrieved against the order dated 20.8.2008, by which his application for recalling the order dated 27.1.2005 has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi.

(2.) The petitioner remained absent from his duty from 30.10.1991 to 7.9.1992, and he did not seek prior permission or post facto permission for granting of the leave for above period. In the Departmental inquiry, the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service vide order dated 19.10.1992. The petitioner challenged the order of removal dated 19.10.1992 by preferring appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 14.4.1998. After delay of about five years, the petitioner preferred and submitted an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, circuit Bench, at Ranchi being O.A. No. 94 of 2003, which was disposed of on 8.5.2003 with a direction to the respondent to pass an speaking order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 15 days. After this order of remand, again the petitioner was found to be guilty for remaining absent from the duty for the aforesaid period. However, the punishment of removal from service was reduced to reversal to the post of Khalasi in the Scale of 2550-3200(RSRO) with Pay Rs. 2551/- with loss of seniority and pay and the petitioner was placed at the bottom of seniority on the date of resumption of duty and earn increment and promotion thereafter, for the intervening period i.e. the period from removal from service to resumption in service is treated as dies non.

(3.) The petitioner has preferred O.A. No. 1 of 2005 against the said order dated 22.8.2003 passed after the earlier O.A. was dismissed. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner the petitioner's O.A. Was dismissed ex parte, and therefore, the petitioner submitted application for review and recalling the order dated 27.1.2005, but that too was dismissed.