Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Pankaj Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 8 March, 2010
.1.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.707/09
Monday this the 8th day of March 2010
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Mr.GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Pankaj Kumar Yadav,
Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (ADME)/
Coaching Depot, Southern Railway,
Power House Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 036. ...Applicant
(By Party-in-Person)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Shri.Arun Bhagra,
Director, Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical
& Electrical Engineers, Jamalapur,
Munger District, Bihar - 811 214.
3. Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 069. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Ms.P.K.Nandini [R1&2]
& Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil [R3])
This application having been heard on 8th March 2010 the Tribunal
on the same day delivered the following :-
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr.GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant is a IRSME Probationer of the 2000 batch. He is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 Office Order No.IMEE.02.14/2000 dated 10.9.2008 issued by the Director, Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Jamalpur (IRIMEE for short) to the Secretary, .2.
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi, recommending the termination of his services due to his continued unauthorised absence. One of the grounds taken by the applicant is that the aforesaid order has been issued after prolonged harassment meted out to him by the respondents for the last two years which had affected his physical and mental health.
2. Counsel for the respondents, Ms.P.K.Nandini, has submitted that the aforesaid Annexure A-1 order is only an internal correspondence between the Director, IRIMEE, Jamalpur and the Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi and the applicant has not been given any order of termination so far. Therefore, it is pre-mature for him to to presume any action on the basis of the aforesaid Annexure A-1 order.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, the applicant stated that he has no objection in closing this case provided he will be given prior notice before any action for terminating his service is taken.
4. We, therefore, close this OA with a direction to the respondents not to terminate the services of the applicant without giving prior notice in tune with the principles of natural justice. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 8th day of March 2010)
K.NOORJEHAN GEORGE PARACKEN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp