JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. The prayer is to review the order dated 26.3.2003 and hearing the writ petition afresh inter alia on the ground that while passing the order under review Annex.A/6 appended to tie original application, was not before the Court and was not read and taken account while passing the order under review. 2. We find from the subject matter of the writ petition that the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 2.9.1994 passed in Original Application No. 209/1993 and the order passed on the review application on 1.12.2000. 3. The applicant has been dismissed from service after conducting the departmental enquiry into the allegation of will full absence from duty. The disciplinary proceedings have proceeded ex-parte as the delinquent has not appeared. However, he had appeared on 18.8.1979 to join the duty. The order of removal was served on 21,8.1979. 4. The Tribunal has primarily quashed the enquiry on the ground that since the applicant has appeared before the respondents, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have reopened the enquiry and after serving a new charge sheet on him, the enquiry should have been completed after giving opportunity of hearing to him and when the same was not cone as such it has no alternative but to quash the order of disciplinary authority. 5. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the Court noticed the two-fold grounds which prevailed with the Tribunal to pass the order in following terms:-- "Firstly, that the records of efforts made by the enquiry officer to serve the notice upon the delinquent officer on his correct address has not been produced before the CAT. It was not possible for the CAT to ascertain the correct position: and secondly that since the delinquent officer has appeared before the respondents on 18.8.1979 for resuming his duty. he ought to have been given opportunity of hearing by serving the initial charge sheet and after allowing him to participate in enquiry but the same has not been done. The Tribunal felt that it has no opinion than to quash the order of the Disciplinary." 6. he ought to have been given opportunity of hearing by serving the initial charge sheet and after allowing him to participate in enquiry but the same has not been done. The Tribunal felt that it has no opinion than to quash the order of the Disciplinary." 6. The Court opined that it was a strange co-incident that the delinquent officer appeared on the very same day to resume duty on which the disciplinary authority has passed the order to remove him from service though the order was served on him later and alleged that he was not allowed to join his duty. It is true that the order dated 18.8.1979 was served on the delinquent subsequent thereafter. Apart from the technical attending circumstances and the efforts disclosed to have been made by the disciplinary authority for effecting personal service of the notice in his report about correctness of which there was no specific allegation in the original application and the fact that the notices were actually sent at his residential quarter where according to the delinquent, he was always available but it was found locked and notice was not accepted by anyone, the Court recorded following efforts made by the Enquiry Officer: "(1) Thereafter at all available addresses including one C/o Rajni Medical Hall, Bikaner, whose sick certificate was submitted by employee, letter No. NM/CMI/JU/1978/Dee. of 2.12.1978 was issued by undersigned to Shri Ratan Singh Verma advising him to attend the enquiry on 20.12.1978. But registered covers were received back through Postal authorities since addressee was not found or was not available and Ratan Singh did not attend enquiry on 20.12.1978. (2) Thereafter another date was fixed 9.3.1979 and Regd. A/D letters No. NM/CMI/JU/1979 Feb. dated 14.2.1979 was sent to Shri Ratan Singh. All the covers were received back and undelivered from Postal authorities except one which was addressed to Dr. S.P. Kausik, Rajni Medical Hall, Dauji Road, Bikaner with the request to deliver this letter to Shri Ratan Singh Verma who is under sick leave with you vide your sick certificate No. 258 of 27.1.1979. This cover was delivered on 17.2.1979 according to A/D slip at S.No. 30. Despite delivery of letter to Dr. S.P. Kaushik well in time (20 days earlier) neither Shri Ratan Singh Verma attended enquiry on 9.3.1979 nor any other communication was received from him or Dr. S.P Kaushik. This cover was delivered on 17.2.1979 according to A/D slip at S.No. 30. Despite delivery of letter to Dr. S.P. Kaushik well in time (20 days earlier) neither Shri Ratan Singh Verma attended enquiry on 9.3.1979 nor any other communication was received from him or Dr. S.P Kaushik. (3) Besides these registered letters, efforts were made to intimate the said employee at his Jodhpur address i.e. Railway Quarter No. L.237 'C', Loco Colony, Jodhpur. Shri Suresh Narain Khalasi was sent to deliver letter on 14.2.1979 stated that the quarter was found closed and he pasted the letter on the door." 7. We find at this stage that no case of review is made out which is founded on the basis of reasoning appearing from the order of the Tribunal and the material placed by the parties before it. The alternative contention raised by the learned counsel for the delinquent officer about the non-supply of enquiry report was also dealt with in detail.The Review Application is accordingly rejected.Review Petition Dismissed. *******