Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur

Union Of India Through Secretary vs P.N.Mishra on 8 September, 2015

      

  

   

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR

REVIEW APPLICATION  No. 200/00026/15
in
OA No. 972/2012

Jabalpur this the 08th day of September, 2015.
      CORAM:
      HONBLE  MR.G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
      HONBLE  MR.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Union of India through Secretary, 
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
New Delhi -110 001.

2. Director General, India Council of Forestry Research &
 Education, PO New Forest, Dehradun,
 Uttrakhand -248 006.

3. Director, Tropical Forest Research Institute, 
PO RFRC, Mandla  Road, 
Jabalpur -482 021.

4. Chief Vigilance Officer , Council  of Forestry Research &
  Education, PO New Forest, 
Dehradun -248 006.

5. Inquiry Authority, Scientist ITFRI, Mandla Road, 
Jabalpur  -482 021.						- Review Applicants

(By  Advocate  - Shri S.K.Mishra)

      Versus

P.N.Mishra, s/o Late Dr.B.N.Mishra, aged about 59 years, 
Scientist G, Tropical Forest Research Institute, 
PO, RFRC, Mandla Road, Jabalpur -482 021, 
R/o Plot No.9, Block No.9, Arihant Homes, 
Jalaram Bapu Nagar, Mandla Road Tilahri,
 Jabalpur -482 021.				      -  Respondent/ Applicant in OA


O R D E R (By Circulation)

BY HONBLE MR.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) This Review Application has been filed by the Respondents in OA No. 972/2012 seeking a review and recall of the order passed by this Tribunal on 22.07.2015 in the OA. The OA was filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on him. Finding that the impugned order is cryptic , non-speaking, and without stating the detailed reasons, this Tribunal quashed and set aside Annexure A/1 order and remitted the matter to the competent authority to conduct further inquiry. It was also directed that the applicant shall be reinstated forthwith.

2. The Review Applicants point out that Annexure A/1 was only a summarised form of the detailed order passed by the disciplinary authority on 31.10.2012 - which is the actual penalty order stating the reasons for passing such order. The Review Applicants state that this Tribunal passed the order sought to be reviewed without recording any illegality in the enquiry and also without adverting to the actual order imposing penalty passed by the disciplinary authority.

3. We have perused the records of the case. We notice that along with the OA, applicant had produced only the short, cryptic Annexure A/1 order as part of his record. According to the applicant in the OA, the enquiry was conducted behind his back and the order passed was result of the ex-parte proceedings against him.

4. In the reply statement, though the respondents mentioned that the penalty order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 31.10.2012, they have not taken the pains to mark a copy of the same as Annexure to their pleadings to catch the attention of the Tribunal. During the final hearing of the case also there was no reference to the copy of the order dt. 31.10.2012. Hence it remained in the record of the defence as an un-marked document not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Not even in the Review application the said document was produced as a marked document. Only at the time of considering this review application, we happened to see a copy of that document (order dt. 31.10.12) at page- 133 of the paper book. Even though the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority is a crucial document, respondents never bothered to highlight the document marking as an Annexure to the pleadings of the respondents. Therefore, the unmarked document escaped the notice of the Tribunal.

5 In the above circumstances, we consider that the failure to take note of the disciplinary authorities order dt. 31.10.2012 amounts to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, In the interest of justice we recall the order passed by this Tribunal on 22.07.2015.

6. Registry is directed to list the OA for a fresh hearing before an appropriate Division Bench.

7 Ordered accordingly.

(U.Sarathchandran)					(G.P.Singhal)
Judicial Member					Administrative Member
jm