UNION OF INDIA Vs. C.J. SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in Original Application No.502/1998, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) are the petitioners in this writ petition presented before this Court on 15/3/2002. Challenge herein is to the legality and validity of the judgment and order dtd. 18/12/2002 whereby the original application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 instituted by the original applicant (hereafter "the respondent") was allowed by passing the following order:

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioners reveals that the respondent, who was initially appointed as a safaiwala and thereafter selected as peon and posted in the Naval Dockyard, remained absent from 21/5/1990 to 4 th May 1991 resulting in issuance of a charge-sheet dtd. 4/5/1991 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereafter "the Rules", for short) for unauthorised absence. The respondent was required to submit his written statement of defence within ten days of receipt of the charge-sheet. According to the petitioners, the charge-sheet was despatched by registered post on 4/5/1991 itself to the address of the respondent. The envelope containing the charge-sheet was, however, returned with the postal remark "not claimed". Since no written statement of defence was received from the respondent, his Disciplinary Authority by an order dtd. 16/9/1991 considered it proper to appoint an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charge framed against the respondent. Intimation of such appointment was also despatched on 16/9/1991 itself by registered post to the respondent. The relevant envelope too was returned with the postal remark "not claimed". Intimation regarding dates of inquiry were also sent to the respondent by registered post on 9/10/1991 and 11/11/1991, which the respondent acknowledged. In the inquiry that followed, the respondent did not appear. Consequently, the inquiry was conducted ex parte. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dtd. 7/3/1992 holding that the charge of unauthorized absence against the respondent stood proved. Copy of the inquiry report was despatched to the respondent, but the envelope was returned with the postal remark "left". Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority by an order dtd. 26/8/1992 accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent with full terminal benefits as admissible to his qualifying service. Such order was also despatched by registered post, but the envelope returned with the remark "not claimed". There was also a publication of the order of compulsory retirement in the newspaper named "Sandesh" on 30/3/1993. From 21/5/1990 till 30/8/1996, the whereabouts of the respondent were unknown as he did not engage in any communication with the relevant department. On 14/11/1996, the respondent carried the order of compulsory retirement in an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who rejected the appeal as time barred by an order dtd. 22/8/1997.

(3.) What has not been stated in the writ petition is that the respondent had filed a revision petition on 10/4/1997, which was rejected on 2/8/1997. The order of the Revisional Authority dtd. 2/8/1997 is, however, a part of the writ petition at pages 44 to 47 thereof. The relevant part of the Revisional Authority's order reads as follows: