Judgment:
Civil Appeal No 3024 OF 2007.(Arising out of SLP) No.13110 of 2006)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.
- Leave granted.
After the notice was
issued by this Court on the instant Special Leave Petition on 18th of
August, 2006, the petition again came up for hearing on 23rd of April,
2007 when the following order was passed:
"It is stated that
the petitioner (Constable-Driver) was dismissed from service and his
case was that there was only one day's delay in reporting for duty and
there was also a justifiable reason of death of his father. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate if the
respondent-Union of India considers his case sympathetically if he can
be reinstated in service without back wages."
3. Departmental
proceedings were initiated against the appellant and the inquiry officer
returned a finding of guilt against him. The disciplinary authority,
relying on the said finding of the inquiry officer, agreed with the same
and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant.
4. Being aggrieved
by the said order of dismissal, the appellant challenged the same before
the concerned statutory authorities. Finally the order of dismissal was
challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal which also
dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that the same
was time barred and that no reasonable explanation had been given by the
appellant for preferring the appeal belatedly.
5. Challenging the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, a writ petition was moved
before the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition,
inter alia, on the following finding :
"We have gone
through the records and having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, we find that there was no reason for the petitioner in not
approaching the court/tribunal in terms of the statement made by the
respondents in their letter dated 12th of June, 2001. It was
specifically mentioned in the said communication sent to the petitioner
by the respondents that he now has a remedy to move the court against
the order of punishment of the disciplinary authority and also as
against the order passed by the appellate authority. The fact that no
revision would he as against the said order was also brought to his
notice. Despite the said fact, the petitioner went on filing
representation after representation. The said representations were not
statutory. The filing of such representations is not provided for. The
petitioner had all the options to move the Tribunal for redressal of his
grievances. He did not exercise such option expeditiously. He slumbered
over the matter and did not avail the remedy available to him"
6. It is this order
of the Division Bench of the High Court which the appellant has
challenged by way of a special leave petition in which leave has been
granted. As noted herein earlier, the matter came up for hearing before
a Bench of this Court on 23rd of April, 2007, when it was observed that
the dismissal from service of the appellant was due to one day's delay
in reporting for duty and there was also a justifiable reason of death
of his father. Considering this aspect of the matter this Court thought
it fit to direct the Union of India-respondents to consider the case of
the appellant sympathetically and if he could be reinstated in service
without back wages.
7. The matter came
up for hearing before this Bench on 9th of July, 2007 when the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted on instruction that in
view of the observations made by this Court on 23rd April, 2007
respondents would have no objection to reinstate the appellant in
service without payment of back wages. Such being the stand taken by the
respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant that in the event he is reinstated he would not claim
back wages, we direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in
service within one month from the date of communication of this order.
We make it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages.
8. In view of the
order passed by this Court, the order of dismissal passed against the
appellant is liable to be set aside and
delay in filing the original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal must be condoned. Accordingly the order of
dismissal from service is set aside and the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as of the High Court stands set aside
and consequent thereupon the original application filed before the
Central Administrative Tribunal also stands allowed. The appeal is thus
allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Print This Judgment
|