Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 823 (ORI)

Rupananda Bhaisal v. Union of India

2017-08-01

K.R.MOHAPATRA, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dismissing O.A. No.1187 of 1992 filed by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Khalasi at Bondamunda under the Chatrapur Division of South-Eastern Railway on 18.06.1983. Due to his unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 12.10.1987, he was intimated vide order dated 08.02.1988 to join the duty immediately failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him. In spite of warning given to him, the petitioner did not join in service for which disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In spite of receipt of the notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer or participated in the disciplinary proceeding in which, the major penalty of removal from service was imposed on him, vide order dated 07.04.1988 (Annexure-21). The same was also duty communicated to the petitioner. After lapse of eight years, the petitioner instead of preferring an appeal against the order of removal from service, had filed a Revision on 17.12.1997 before the authority under Rule 24 (3) of Railways Services (D & A) Rules, 1968. The Revision was dismissed by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel), vide order dated 27.10.1988 (Annexure-3) holding as under :- “As per Sub Rule (3) of Rule 24 of RS (D & A) Rules “A Class IV Railway servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired from service may, after his appeal to the appropriate appellate authority, has been disposed off and within two months thereafter, apply to the Divisional Railway Manager for a revision of the penalty”. In this case however the party has never appealed to the appropriate appellate authority within the stipulated time. Hence the question of revision of the penalty does not arise.” (emphasis supplied) The petitioner thereafter sat silent till 2002, when he filed O.A. No.1187 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal assailing the order of his removal as well as revisional order. Learned tribunal, holding that both the Revision as well as Original Application being hopelessly barred by limitation, dismissed the Original Application vide order dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-4), which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Learned tribunal, holding that both the Revision as well as Original Application being hopelessly barred by limitation, dismissed the Original Application vide order dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-4), which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mishra learned Counsel for the South Eastern Railways (opposite party No.2 to 4). The facts stated above are not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never been communicated either about the initiation of the disciplinary or about the revisional order passed by opposite party No.4. Thus, he could not know either about initiation of the disciplinary proceeding or about the order passed by the revisional authority under Annexure-3. The petitioner being an illiterate person, was earning his livelihood as a labourer by travelling to different places, after the order of removal from service was passed, The petitioner remained absent from duty due to un-avoidable circumstances mentioned in detail in the revision petition. Thus, he prayed to set aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 so also order of removal from service under Annexure-1 and prayed for de novo enquiry into the allegation of un-authorised absence made against him. He further prayed to provide him an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceeding. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Railways, submitted that the petitioner was a habitual absentee from duty. He was inducted into service as regular Khalasi in the year 1983 and was removed from service in the year 1988. During tenure of five years in service, he had remained absent unauthorisedly on three occasions for which he was warned time and again. The notice of the initiation of disciplinary proceeding was duly served on him by registered post with A.D. But the petitioner did not cooperate with the Enquiry Officer for which he was constrained to proceed ex parte in the disciplinary proceeding. The notice of the initiation of disciplinary proceeding was duly served on him by registered post with A.D. But the petitioner did not cooperate with the Enquiry Officer for which he was constrained to proceed ex parte in the disciplinary proceeding. Although, the order of dismissal/removal from service was appealable, the petitioner had remained silent for more than eight years and filed a revision under Rule 24 (3) of the Railways Services Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1968, which was rightly rejected holding that the same was hopelessly barred by limitation and that revision would only be maintainable against order of the Appellate Authority and not otherwise. The delay in filing the Revision as well as delay in filing the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was not at all explained by the petitioner. Hence, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same needs no interference. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal against order of removal, filed a revision after long lapse of eight years. The petitioner had admittedly not explained the cause of filing the revision at such a belated stage. Further, Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides the procedure to make an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 19 (1) provides that a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Section 21 provides for limitation to make an application to the Tribunal. Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall not admit an application unless the same is presented within one year from the date on which the order sought to be assailed has been passed. The petitioner was removed from service on 07.04.1988. The Revision preferred by him was disposed of on 27.10.1988. The Original Application was filed beyond the period of limitation, i.e., in the year 2002. The delay in filing the Original Application has not been explained. Thus, the Original Application was dismissed as it suffered from delay and latches. The petitioner was removed from service on 07.04.1988. The Revision preferred by him was disposed of on 27.10.1988. The Original Application was filed beyond the period of limitation, i.e., in the year 2002. The delay in filing the Original Application has not been explained. Thus, the Original Application was dismissed as it suffered from delay and latches. On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-4, it reveals learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties and passed the impugned order on a threadbare discussion of the submissions and materials available on record. The impugned order under Annexure-4 is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity and illegality. 7. We, therefore, find no force in the submission of Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.