Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51945 of 2000 Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Respondent :- The Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.,Ajai Singh,K.N. Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
1. Writ petition is restored to its original number vide order of date passed on Application No. 221547 of 2017.
2. As requested by Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, we proceed to hear and decide the matter finally under the Rules of the Court with the assistance of learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.
3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has come up against judgment and order dated 01.08.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as "O.A.") No.566 of 1993 dismissing petitioner's aforesaid application.
4. After departmental inquiry and finding charges proved, petitioner was imposed punishment of removal vide order dated 13.9.1989 whereagainst his appeal was also rejected vide order dated 04.04.1990 and revision was also rejected vide order dated 19.11.1992. All these orders were challenged before the Tribunal.
5. It does not appear that before Tribunal petitioner raised any argument pointing out error in decision making process resulting in denial of adequate opportunity of defence in inquiry.
6. Before us also only one argument is advanced that before passing impugned order of removal, copy of inquiry report was not 2 supplied to petitioner. Admittedly, order of removal was passed on 13.9.1989 and decision, holding that copy of enquiry report must have been supplied was rendered in Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 vide judgment dated 20.11.1990. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B.Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 held that law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) will be applicable only to such cases where order of punishment has been passed on and after the date of decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) i.e. 20.11.1990 and not to earlier one.
7. Since, in the present case, order of punishment has been passed prior to decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) therefore, the said argument is not available to petitioner.
8. Even otherwise, it is not stated anywhere in the entire writ petition as to what prejudice was caused to petitioner by non supply of copy of enquiry report. In B.Karunakar (supra), Apex Court also held that mere non-supply of enquiry report will not vitiate order unless employee concerned pleads and demonstrate that non-supply of enquiry report has caused prejudice to him.
9. No other point has been argued.
10. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition.
11. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 KA
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51945 of 2000 Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Respondent :- The Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.,Ajai Singh,K.N. Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Delay Condonation Application No.221544 of 2017
1. Heard.
2. Delay in filing recall application is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
Delay Condonation Application No.221547 of 2017
1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 07.04.2016, whereby the writ petition was dismissed in absence of counsel for petitioner.
2. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown for absence of learned counsel for petitioner, when the case was called in the revised list, is sufficient. The order dated 07.04.2016 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 KA