Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Jannath Begum vs M/O Defence on 31 March, 2023
~ I OA 419/2014 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAT BENCH OA NO.419/2014 . Se Dated Fri day, theo! day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARA) PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.JANNATH BEGUM Ex-Supervisor (NT/OTS} P.No.0457 Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project (HAPP)- No.25, Mullai Vasal Street, D.Nagar, Tiruverumbur Tiruchirapalli-620013 . Applicant By Advocate M/s R.Vijaya Kumar Vs. i. Union of India Rep, by the Chairman Ordnance Factory Board, 104, S.K.Bose Road, KOLKA-A-700 001. 2:Add!. DGOF & Member Appellate Authority Ordnance Factory Board, 10A, S.K.Bose Road, KOLKATA-700 00%. 3. The General Manager Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project Tiruchirapalli-620025. 4,The Chairman and Managing Director, Munitions India Limited, A Government of India Enterprise, Ministry of Defence, Khadki, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 003. 5.The Director General of Ordnance, Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services) 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata 700 001. . Respondents By Advocate Mr.K.Rajendran x} 2 OA 419/2014 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"To call for the records of the impugned -- order No.152/1B/14/65/VIG/HAPP/05 dated 2.06.2006 as confirmed by the Appellate Authority No.17420/A/Disc., dated 24.10.2013 resulting in the impugned orders and quash the same and direct the respondents reinstate the applicant herein with all consequential attended benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper ."
2: The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant joined the services in the office of the respondent as LDC In the year 1988. Subsequently she came to be transferred to HAPP in the office of the 3° respondent as a Supervisor (Non-Technical) in the year 1991. She was posted to the Labour Bureau (LB). While she was discharging her duties to the entire satisfaction of her superiors to the best of her abilities applicant was shocked to hear of the issuance of charge memo dated 09.03.2005 for alleged unauthorised absence from 02.06.2004 to 09.03.2005 for the period of nine months thereby the 3" respondent issued an ex-parte order removing the applicant from service. The applicant contended that initially she has applied for 37 days leave on 19.04.2004 for the period from 20.04.2004 to 01.06.2004 to visit her ailing husband in Kuwait and same was granted by the 3 respondent. On 02.06.2004 she sent a fax from Kuwait for seeking an extension of leave up to 20.06.2004. In the absence of any communication from sanctioning authority, the applicant was under impression that extension of leave has been sanctioned. The applicant again on 26.04.2004 sent another fax seeking further extension of leave upto 30.04.2005. So far 3 OA 4195/2014 she has 'ot received any communication regarding extension of leave applied fer. The respondents have not considered the condition of the applicant's husband without considering the same, the 3% respondent issued a charge memo and framed three charges against the applicant. The respondents inittated action the disciplinary proceedings and proceeded with the same ex-parte on the ground that though the respondents have made the attempt to serve the said charge sheet as well as intimation in respect of the Inquiry proceedings, hearing dates, since the applicant has not appeared, hence concluded the inquiry ex-parte and passed the order or removal from service. The applicant contended that she has rendered 17 years continuous service honestly with full of dedication. However, the respondents have failed to consider the applicant's genuine difficulty as she was compelled to seek leave and further extension of leave because of her husband's ailing condition. Hence the farce of the said action of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority to take the said decision on ex-parte after the conclusion of the inquiry report and removing the applicant from service.
Though the applicant has submitted her detailed appeal dated 19.10.2012, by its order dated 24.10.2013, the appellate authority has rejected the same and confirmed the order dated 10.06.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority for removal of service. Being aggrieved the applicant has challenged the same in the present.OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their detailed reply and raised objection over the said plea and grounds raised in the OA and contended that the first application of the applicant for sanction of 37 days of leave has been only approved and sanctioned by the authorities. For the further extension, the applicant's request has been rejected and same has been communicated by telegraph CJ 4 OA.419/2014 and other proper mode of communication to the given address. Due to the insufficient address of Kuwait the same has been returned and from local address with a remark "Premises were locked". The said communication has been returned back to the office. Therefore by way of paper publication, the said action has been communicated to the applicant to which the applicant has made communication to the disciplinary authority as well as to inquiry authority sought for some time, however, she neither attended the office of the respondents nor appeared before the inquiry authority, though she was very well present in India. Moreover, after the order of removal from service, passed by the disciplinary authority has been appealed by the applicant almost. after the lapse to.six years, The respondent authority have considered her appeal by condoning the delay and considering the entire records confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. The respondents also contended that the applicant has filed the present OA without exhausting the remedy of revision available as per the provision of Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Therefore, the application as per Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is premature. Therefore the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. Heard MrR.Vijayakumar for the applicant and Mr.K.Rajendran for the respondents and perused the records,
6. In support of her contention the applicant has relled upon the decision of the Hon. Supreme court in the matter of Krushnakant B.Parmar Vs. UOT & Anr (2012) 3 SCC 178 and decision of the Delhi High court in Satnam. Singh Pabla Vs. Delhi Power Company Ltd dated 02.01.2014 and also filed written arguments. |
7. It is to be noted that admittedly the applicant has applied for the leave from 26.04.2004 to 01.06.2004 for 37 days on the ground to visit Kuwait 5 OA 419/2014 where her husband was working. It is also not in dispute that same has been sanctioned by the authorities. It is also to be noted that when applicant has submitted her request for extension of leave from 02.06.2004 to 22.06.2004 for 21 days for the purpose to visit Kuwait,
8. It is to be noted that when she has submitted this extension to the leave no reasons were quoted and that has been sent through one M.Munusamy, Cashier.
9, It is also to be noted that when applicant sought for extension for the first time on 02.06.2004, bare perusal of the said application, she has mentioned just the pin number and not the detailed address.
10. It is also to be noted that when she has submitted second application on 24.06.2004, she has mentioned her local address with a remark (now at Kuwait). So farshe has not given her detail address in Kuwait. tt is also to be noted that the respondents have immediately after the said correspondence of the applicant by telegram have informed that her request for extension of leave has not been sanctioned by the authorities. Therefore, she has to report immediately. However, the applicant has. not responded to any of the telegram. Accordingly the respondents have proceeded with the disciplinary action by issuing a memorandum dated 09.03.2005 framing 3. articles. Accordingly the said memorandum has been issued by registered post to her local address as well as to the Kuwait address. The said envelopes were returned back with remarks for the local address "Left from India" and for Kuwalt address "Address not sufficient", Accordingly, the respondents have issued public notification dated 04.06.2005 in the newspaper "The Hindu" as well in Tamil Daily Newspaper "The Daily Thanthi" by way of detail public notice. It is also to be noted that against the said paper publication, 04.06.2005, the applicant has submitted her reply dated 10.06.2005, At that O 6 OA 419/2014 time the applicant was very well present in India at her native. However, applicant has sent the said reply by post. In. spite of the knowledge of the inquiry proceedings, applicant has not reported to duties. The respondents proceeded further and appointed the Inquiry officer and presenting officer in the said inquiry against the applicant and the same has been communicated to the applicant through registered post with acknowledgement.
£1. Itis also to be noted that notice of first hearing dated 19.07.2005 also sent to the applicant's local address. The applicant has submitted her reply to the said notice on 28.07.2005 and requested for documents and further some more time with permission to seek assistance of legal practitioner. In reply, by letter dated 30.07.2005 inquiry authority has informed that they have fixed the hearing of the inquiry on 13.08.2005 and also instructed her to approach the disciplinary authority for permission to engage the lega:
practitioner. It is also intimated to the applicant that if she failed to appear on the given time, the inquiry will be proceeded within a term of Srn11 r/w Sr.No.20: of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, £1965. The applicant has replied te this letter too. by reply dated 08.68.2005 wherein she has Informed that against her original planned departure to Kuwait in middle of August she was compelled to advance her departure on 08.08.2005 owing to non-availability of flight tickets to Kuwait and on her planned date, since the month of August turn out to. be busy all the times will show the conduct of the applicant. Rather than attending to the said inquiry she only instructed the respondents to extend her leave as requested by her on earlier letter,
12. As such the inquiry officer has issued order under Rule 14 (11) and communicated by letter dated 20.08.2005 as well as by letter dated 18.10.2005 notice of third hearing has also been given to the applicant,
13. It Js also to be noted that by memorandum dated 04.03.2006 inquiry 7 OA 419/2014 report has been forwarded to the applicant at her loca! address as well as same also has been published in News paper dated 24.04.2006. Finally by order dated 10.06.2006, the authorities have imposed the penalty of removal from service w.e.f 10.06.2006. The same has been Informed to the applicant by letter dated 29.06.2006 at her local address as well as whatever the address provided by her at Kuwait. Admittedly all these communications exchanged in between the respondent authority, inquiry. authority and applicant is not in dispute.
14, Itis aiso to be noted that though the applicant was very well present in India during the period of said inquiry, however she herself had neither appeared before the inquiry authority nor before the respondent competent authority personally.
15. It is also to be noted that the authorities relied by the applicant in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmer Vs. UOI and in the matter of Satnam Singh Pabla Vs. Delhi Power company. Ltd., are not applicable to the applicant's case since in the matter of Krushnakant B.Parmer he was prevented from attending the duty by the one of the authorities of the respondent as well in the matter of Satnam Singh Pabla the notice was not sent to the said Satnam Singh Pabla at his Canadian address.
16. Itis to be noted that in the matter of present applicant, on every point the respondents have issued the communications/notices to the applicant's iocal address as well as address provided by the applicant at Kuwait. Even after the knowledge of the inquiry proceedings, the applicant has not reported to the duties. In view of the said facts and records, the respondents authority have imposed the said penalty of removal from service after proper inquiry as well as rejection of appeal does not call for our interference. Since the applicant herself has not availed the said remedy to file the revision {} "} 8 OA 419/2014 petition looking to the facts and circumstances, we are not keen to pass any order In favour of the applicant. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach the authority by filing a revision petition in accordance with law and respondent may consider the same sympathetically. In view of the same.
OA is disposed of. No costs.