High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Narayan Singh v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 16902 of 2003  RD-AH 108 (21 April 2003)
COURT NO. 38
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 16902 Of 2003
Narayan Singh ----- Petitioner Versus
Union of India & ors. ----- Respondents
Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass, J.
This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 24.1.2003 (Annex.-5), by which his application against the order dated 30.10.1989 removing the petitioner from service has been rejected.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been working in the Air Force and he proceeded on leave on 3.6.1986 to 22.6.1986, but did not return and the respondent wrote several letters to the petitioner to attend the duty or to submit letter for voluntary retirement. As neither petitioner joined the service nor he submitted the application for voluntary retirement, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him. In spite of service of notices, petitioner did not join the enquiry. He was also given notice of enquiry by making publication in the local newspaper. As he did not join the enquiry, the order to proceed exparte against him was passed. Enquiry Officer submitted the report, a copy of which was also served upon him so that he could file representation against the same. He did not file any reply/representation. After considering the report, punishment of removal from service was imposed upon him.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner made a representation to the Chief of the Air Staff, which was rejected vide order dated 13.3.1990. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24630 of 1993 before this Court which was transferred to the learned Tribunal vide order dated 13.9.2002. The Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner vide impugned order. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had been in service for more than 23 years, therefore, his removal from service was not warranted so unceremoniously. The punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner. He was mentally depressed and under treatment in the village, therefore could not respond to the letters written by the respondents. Therefore, the order of removal from service is liable to be quashed.
The learned Tribunal has dealt with the issues in detail, recorded the following findings of fact.
(1)Petitioner remained absent from duty after expiry of the leave on 22.6.1986 for years together;
(2)Respondents sent several letters to the petitioner to join the duty which he received but did not respond;
(3)Respondents advised the petitioner by writing a letter to submit the voluntary retirement application which he received but did not respond;
(4)Several notices were sent by the respondents for joining the disciplinary proceedings. He received all of them but did not file any reply;
(5)He was served notice of enquiry by publication in the local newspaper but he did not consider it proper to join the enquiry;
(6)On completion of enquiry, the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner to file representation which he received, but made no representation;
(7)Petitioner claimed to have been suffering from hyper tension and mental depression. No satisfactory documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal in this respect. An incomplete certificate issued by some Doctor had been filed which was not trustworthy; and
(8)The respondents also made publication in the local newspaper to join the enquiry but he opted not to defend himself;
In view of the above, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that enquiry had been conducted fairly and there had been no violation of any statutory provision or principles of natural justice. Thus, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal. As petitioner had been a member of disciplined Force (Air Force) and he did not furnish any satisfactory explanation of his illness, removal from service was not disproportionate to the misconduct considering the period of absence.
We have considered the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the same submissions which had been made before the learned Tribunal. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner against the order of removal from service as the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse for not being based on evidence or being contrary to the evidence on record. There is no scope of review of the order passed by the Tribunal on any ground.
Petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.