RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE brief facts culled out from the records are that the petitioner was appointed on 03.09.1985 on compassionate ground on the post of Hindi typist in pay scale of Rs. 260-400 in the D.R.M. Office of North Central Railway (N.C.R.) Allahabad. Thereafter against a vacancy in operating Branch on the death of one Sri A.N.Kapoor working in the said post there she was posted in the Hindi Section vide order dated 18.11.1985 as typist (Hindi) and worked there up to 12.05.1999. The petitioner was thereafter transferred and relieved for joining in the Safety Department of the Railways. The matter being represented by her before the National Commission for SC/ST by which her transfer order was stayed directing the Railways to pay her salary in compliance of the interim order dated 23.07.1999 by the Commission. The petitioner claims that she was allowed to work and was paid salary for few months but thereafter neither she was allowed to work nor her salary was paid. This compelled her to file Original Application no. 950 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Allahabad ( hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) challenging the relieving/ repatriation order dated 12.05.1999 and 03.06.1999. It appears that Railways was treating her transfer to the safety department as repatriation. It also appears that during the pendency of the Original Application a Misc. Application no. 3644 of 2003 was preferred by the Railways which was served upon the petitioner alongwith a chargesheet dated 05.05.2003 for unauthorised absence w.e.f. 12.05.1999. According to the petitioner since she had earlier challenged her relieving order dated 12.05.1999, an amendment application was moved by her in the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal for quashing the chargesheet and issuance of interim direction to the respondents for not holding any inquiry during the pendency of the Original Application. The amendment application was allowed but no interim order was granted on her prayer for restraining the department from holding disciplinary proceedings. The charges against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings said to have been held exparte, were found to be proved and she was dismissed from service vide order dated 15.06.2004. As such another amendment application was preferred by the petitioner in Original Application challenging the order of dismissal dated 15.06.2004 on the ground that the inquiry proceedings were exparte and without reasonable opportunity of being heard, afforded to her. This amendment application was also allowed. The tribunal thereafter after hearing the parties by its judgement and order dated 27.09.2007 held that " In view above, we are of the opinion that O.A. Lacks merit and do not feel there is nay need for this Tribunal to interfere with the dismissal order dated 15.06.2004. On the issue of salary and other consequential benefits, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with the rules on the subject. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs."
(3.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order and judgement on the ground that the findings recorded by it which are not based on any document rather they are pervese and illegal. It is also submitted that the departmental inquiry proceedings having been held exparte is in violation of principles of natural justice and is liable tobe quashed. The judgement impugned is also challenged on the ground that the tribunal has not recorded as to what was the material before it on which it was satisfied that there is no denial of the provisions of natural justice in holding the inquiry as well as the basis for passing of the order of penalty and on the basis of which, the tribunal formed its opinion that there was no need to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 15.06.2004. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that petitioner Smt. Vimla Devi was appointed as typist in Grade II 260-400 on compassionate ground in Hindi Section against a vacancy of operating branch which vacancy became available due to death of Sri A.N.Kapoor. A demand was made by the safety branch due to which she was repatriated there but she did not report for duty and instead approached the National Commission for SC/ST. The matter of unauthorised absence was brought by the Railways to the notice of the Commission, requesting for a direction to the petitioner to report for duty and that she was not entitled to any relief on the ground of no work no pay during the period of her unauthorised absence. The petitioner was again asked to resume her duties but instead of complying the order, she remained absent unauthorisedly. In consequence thereof a charge sheet was issued to her. Regarding, affording of opportunity of hearing, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that she was served with notice to participate in the inquiry. However, despite the knowledge she did not choose to do so. Registered letters were also sent on the address of the petitioner which were received back with the remarks:- " 'Bar Bar Jate Hai, Par Mulakat Nahi Hoti.' ' Makan Chhor Diya Hai, Kahi Aur Chale Gay Hai Jiska Pata Nahni." ;