Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surinder Kumar Son Of Shri Muni Lal vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 4 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 060/00357/2016
Date of filing: 25.04.2016
Order reserved on: 29.04.2016
Chandigarh, this the 4th day of May, 2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE SMT. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Surinder Kumar son of Shri Muni Lal, Aged 51 years, Ex. Lister Driver Token No. 1091 (Group-D), Resident of Village Rajpura, P.O. Kotla, District Ferozabad-283202.
.APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ARVIND YADAV
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Division, Firozepur (Pb.).
3. The Divisional Mech, Engineer, Northern Railway, Diesel Shed, Ludhiana (Pb.).
4. The Senior Divisional Mech. Engineer/DSL, Northern Railway, Diesel Road, Ludhiana (Pb.).
5. General Manager, Northern Railway, Rail Head Quarter, Baroda House, New Delhi.
.RESPONDENTS
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
By filing this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short, the Act), applicant Surinder Kumar has assailed order dated 17.03.1994 (not placed on record) thereby removing him from service, appellate order dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure A-14) and Mercy appeal order dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure A-16) .
2. Case of the applicant is that he joined Railways as Lister Driver on 28.10.1978 under respondent no. 2-Divisional Railway Manager, Firozepur. The applicant proceeded on sanctioned leave from 27.1.1993 to 15.2.1993 to visit his native place on account of adverse family circumstances. His son was suffering from Epilepsy vide certificate dated 17.4.1994 (Annexure A-1) and wife was chronic patient of Asthma vide record (Annexure A-2). The applicant applied for extension of leave from time to time alonwith medical certificate. Two such applications dated 31.1.1994 and 14.2.1995 have been produced as (Annexure A-3 collectively). Parents of the applicant expired in a short span of time and on account thereof, the applicant remained under shock and became mentally ill, vide medical certificate dated 01.06.1995 (Annexure A-4). The applicant also became cardiac patient vide certificate dated 2.6.1996 (Annexure A-5). Doctor declared the applicant as medically fit to resume duty vide fitness certificate dated 6.8.2011 (Annexure A-6). The applicant accordingly submitted joining report dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure A-7). Thereupon, the applicant was informed vide letter dated 14/15.9.2011 (Annexure A-8) for the first time that he had been removed from service w.e.f. 17.3.1994 vide order dated 15.3.1994. The applicant made representation dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure A-9) for reinstatement/joining duty with reasons of adverse circumstances. Applicants wife also made representation dated 22.2.2012 (Annexure A-10). Respondents vide letter dated 6.1.2012 (Annexure A-11) asked the applicant to submit all relevant documents/medical certificates in support of his claim. The applicant submitted detailed reply dated 27/30.01.2012 (Annexure A-12). The applicants wife also made representation dated 22.2.2012 (Annexure A-13). Representation dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure A-9) was treated as appeal against the order of removal from service dated 17.3.1994 and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure A-14). The applicant made Mercy appeal dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure A-15) which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.1.2014 (Annexure A-16). The applicant filed application under Section 25 of the Act for retention of O.A. before Principal Bench of the Tribunal. Honble Chairman of the Tribunal rejected the said application vide order dated 12.8.2015 (Annexure A-17) and ordered return of the O.A. for presenting it before this Bench. Thereupon the instant O.A. has been filed on 25.4.2016.
3. We have heard counsel for the applicant on the question of admission of the O.A. and perused the case file.
4. Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that neither charge-sheet was served on the applicant nor any notice of inquiry was given to him nor even impugned order of removal from service was served on him and all proceedings culminating into the impugned orders are illegal. It was also submitted that the applicant had become mental patient and, therefore, could not attend his duty during the interregnum and on becoming fit, he submitted joining report.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find the instant O.A. to be frivolous and meritless. It is applicants own case that he proceeded on leave from 27.1.1993 to 15.2.1993 and thereafter did not attend duty for more than 18 years till submitting alleged joining report dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure A-7). Perusal of impugned appellate order (Annexure A-14) reveals that the applicant was removed from service due to unauthorized absence from duty from 10.2.1993 till 16.3.1994. Charge-sheet, inquiry report and order of removal from service have not been placed on record. Without perusal thereof, said proceedings/order cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. The applicant could very well obtain the same under the Right to Information Act even if the same had allegedly not been supplied to him.
6. The alleged joining report dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure A-7) is in fact not a joining report and is rather an application for information regarding orders on the joining duty report. By this application, he sought detailed information about joining duty. It was replied vide letter dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure A-8) that the applicant had been removed from service w.e.f. 17.3.1994 vide letter dated 15.3.1994 and if he wanted any other information or wanted to see correspondence, he could see on any working day between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. However, the applicant did not seek any further information. He rather made representation dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure A-9) for reinstatement in service and the same was treated as appeal and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure A-14). Perusal of order (Annexure A-14) reveals that the medical certificates submitted by the applicant were examined from the concerned medical centers, but no response was received from any medical center except one from Mumbai which stated that the applicant attended casualty on 22.2.1994 for one day only. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on merit as well as being time barred. Perusal of order dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure A-16) on Mercy Appeal (Annexure A-15) also reveals the same facts. It is also mentioned that the applicant did not bother to inform the concerned authorities regarding his whereabouts and absence from duty. He was served major penalty charge-sheet dated 30.6.1993 and after completing formalities as per Rules, he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority on 17.3.1994, but he did not bother to make any appeal in time. Appeal dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure A-9) was made after 17 years on the ground of illness but the medical certificates were not found to be genuine. It is thus apparent that the applicant remained silent for more than 17 years after order of his removal from service was passed. He woke up in August 2011 by making application dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure A-7) seeking information and then by making representation/ appeal dated 3.10.2011. The applicant has alleged that he had moved applications for extension of leave on medical ground from time to time. However, he has placed on record only two applications dated 31.1.1994 and 14.2.1015 (Annexure A-3 collectively). First application dated 31.01.1994 was made almost one year after expiry of his original leave on 15.2.1993 and 2nd application was made again after one more year. Thereafter the applicant remained silent for more than 16 years till August 2011. No document or application for extension of leave during this long period has been placed on record.
7. As regards the medical condition of the applicants son and wife, there is medical certificate dated 17.4.1994 (Annexure A-1) of the applicants son regarding epilepsy which is not a disease which could have detained the applicant for such long period. Moreover, this certificate Annexure A-1 dated 17.4.1994 although mentions that the applicants son was under treatment since 15.2.1993, but no document since February 1993 till April 1994 has been placed on record. Treatment record Annexure A-2 of applicants wife is of the year 1998. Consequently it has no concern about the extension of leave of the applicant for several years prior to it. Applicants own medical certificate is dated 1.6.1995 (Annexure A-4) and OPD slip dated 2.6.1996 (Annexure A-5). However, thereafter till the year 2011 i.e. for 15 years, there is no document regarding alleged illness of the applicant himself. Then there is only medical fitness certificate dated 6.8.2011 (Annexure A-6) mentioning that the applicant was under treatment since 14.2.1995 till 6.8.2011. However, no supporting document of the said treatment has been placed on record.
8. The applicant could not have been unaware of the order of his removal from service passed in March 1994 till August 2011 for more than 17 years. Admittedly he did not attend duty during this long period.
9. Impugned appellate order (Annexure A-14) and impugned Mercy appeal order (Annexure A-16) are speaking and reasoned orders. There is no infirmity therein. Order passed by the disciplinary authority for removal of applicant from service has not even been placed on record. The appellate orders reveal that the applicant was removed from service for long absence from duty since 10.2.1993 till 16.3.1994.
10. The O.A. is also hopelessly barred by limitation. Last impugned order was passed on 25.1.2014. The O.A. could be filed within one year thereafter i.e. upto 25.1.2015, but has been filed on 25.4.2016 i.e. after delay of 15 months after expiry of limitation period. No application for condonation of such long delay has even been moved nor there is any ground for condoning such long delay. In this context, it is significant to notice that in August 2015 the applicant filed M.A. under Section 25 of the Act before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, but the said application was rejected by the Honble Chairman vide order dated 12.8.2015, but, even thereafter, the applicant did not file the O.A. before this Bench within reasonable time and has rather filed it after expiry of more than 8 months thereafter.
11. A very stale claim is sought to be agitated in the instant O.A. which is also hopelessly barred by limitation and also suffers from delay and laches. Even on merit there is no scope for interference.
12. Resultantly, the O.A. is dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Dated: 04 .05.2016 `SK 1 (O.A. No. 060/00357/2016 )