UNION OF INDIA Vs. IMTIYAZ AHMAD RATHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India & its officers through medium of writ petition on hand, throw challenge to the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Circuit Bench at Srinagar in Original Application (OA) No. 327-JK-2005 titled Imtiyaz Ahmad Rather v. Union of India & ors. before going through the grounds of challenge, it would be appropriate to trace the background facts. Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Rather (respondent herein) working as Labourer in the appellant department was dismissed from service, in terms of order dated 31st March 1997, after an enquiry into his unauthorized absence was concluded in ex-parte. He called in question the termination order in a Civil Suit being Suit No. 89 of 1998 before learned Munsiff/Sub-Registrar Srinagar. The suit was decided vide judgment dated 31st December 2001. Learned trial Judge set aside the Order impugned in the suit on the ground that after the enquiry was concluded, 2nd show, cause notice i.e. a notice informing the respondent/plaintiff about the proposed punishment was not served on the respondent-plaintiff and that the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished with show cause against the proposed punishment. The respondent-plaintiff was directed to be reinstated. However, Liberty was given to the appellants to direct a fresh enquiry and give him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment.

(2.) The judgment dated 31st December 2001 was questioned by both the parties before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree to the extent that the appellants were given liberty to conduct enquiry from the stage of 2nd show cause notice. In other words, appellants in wake of judgment rendered by the 1st Appellate Court did not have liberty to start enquiry afresh from the initial stage. The Appellate Court also did not record agreement with the learned trial Judge as regards the reinstatement of the plaintiff-respondent.

(3.) The 1st Appellate Court judgment was thrown challenge, in Civil 2nd Appeal before this Court. The Civil 2nd Appeal did not succeed as in the opinion of Court, there was no substantial question of law raised in the memorandum of appeal.