NARESH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 22.07.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 90 of 2011 (R), the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 24.01.1974 on the post of Khalasi in Signal and Telecom Department and he was posted at Tatanagar, CKP Division. On 11.04.1996, a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner for unauthorised occupation of quarter No. 530/E at Golpahari and for constructing a Pucca structure on the railway land adjacent to the said quarter. By the penalty order dated 14.05.1998, pay of the petitioner was reduced in the time scale of pay to Rs. 2,550-3,200/- by two stages below for two years with non-cumulative effect. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.01.2000 the petitioner was relieved from Tatanagar. The petitioner made representations to the authorities for permitting him to continue at Tatanagar on the ground of his personal difficulty. By letter dated 16.11.2001, the petitioner was informed that his request for transfer from Bano to Tatanagar may be considered as and when a vacancy at Tatanagar would occur. Since the petitioner did not join at Bano, a charge memorandum dated 13.10.2001 was given to the petitioner to which he filed his show-cause reply. The petitioner thereafter also made several representations and lastly in May, 2009 before the Senior Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer, S.E. Railway for accepting his joining however, he was not permitted to join his post. In the meantime, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 202 of 2009 which was disposed of by order dated 05.10.2009 and pursuant to the said order of the learned Tribunal, the Senior Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer, Chakradharpur vide order dated 30.12.2009 posted the applicant at Padapahar under S.S.E. Signal, Padapahar. The petitioner accordingly, joined his new place of posting on 15.01.2010 from where he retired on 03.01.2011. The learned Tribunal after considering the response of the respondents dismissed the O.A. holding that the contention of the applicant was fallacious and barred by limitation.

(3.) Mrs. M.M. Pal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, it is a matter of record that the petitioner submitted several representations for permitting him to continue at Tatanagar and for accepting his joining however, the petitioner was not permitted to join. Relying on order dated 30.01.2010 in Complaint Case being C/1 Case No. 458 of 2001 whereby, accused namely, Ashim Sarkar, Uday Kumar Sinha and Ram Kumar Jha have been found guilty for offence under Section 323, 341, 506 and 385 IPC, the learned Senior counsel submitted that since the petitioner was prevented from joining his duty, he was entitled for regularisation of the period of the alleged absence with all consequential benefits. It is further submitted that though, a charge-memo dated 13.10.2001 for not joining his post was served to the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was not concluded and no order has been passed imposing penalty on the petitioner for unauthorised absence and therefore, the period between January, 2001 to December, 2009 needs to be regularised and all consequential benefits should have been granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision in "Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 AIR(SC) 2010"