EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The sole respondent has not appeared in this case in spite of valid service of notice upon him.

(2.) By order dated 23.03.2017, notice was directed to be issued to the sole respondent. When the notice was validly served upon the sole respondent, the matter was listed on 11.05.2017, when this Court taking note of the fact that the notice was validly served, but the sole respondent had not yet appeared, adjourned the matter to be listed after summer vacations, awaiting the appearance of the sole-respondent. Again this matter was listed on 06.10.2017, when again we noted that the sole respondent had not yet appeared and adjourned the matter by one month giving him further chance to appear in this case. As the sole-respondent has not yet appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon him, and even awaiting his appearance for a considerably long time, we are deciding the matter on merits ex parte.

(3.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the part of the order dated 12.10.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 25 of 2012(R), whereby on the Original Application filed by the sole-respondent against the minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect, the order of punishment was set aside and the petitioners were directed to give personal hearing to the original applicant and to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment after hearing the applicant. It may be stated that there was no interference by the Central Administrative Tribunal against finding the appellant guilty of the charge of misconduct.