(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) The petitioner came to be appointed as a Music Teacher by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Pune Region, by letter of appointment dated 30/10/1991 and was initially posted at Roopnagar (Bharuch) in Gujarat. He came to be transferred in the year 1997 to Ghadchiroli, Maharashtra and in the year 1998 at Akkalkuwa, Maharashtra and, in the year 2000 at Bucharwada, Diu (Union Territory).
2. On basis of certain complaint received against the petitioner, he came to be suspended on 25/02/2009 and his headquarter was changed. The summary inquiry was held against him by a Summary Trial Inquiry Committee and he was found to be guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Thereupon, he came to be dismissed from service. The petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Summary Trial Inquiry Committee. He, therefore, approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad with Original Application No.362 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had not availed remedy of a statutory appeal available to him.
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Rao submitted that the petitioner could not have availed of statutory remedy in absence of the Summary Trial Inquiry Report, as he would not know what is the material against him; what is weighed with the Committee and why he is found guilty. This aspect was specifically placed into service before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal did not consider and dismissed the petition.
4. In our view, it is true that the petitioner must exhaust a statutory remedy of appeal available to him before approaching the Tribunal, but he can avail of that remedy only if he knows what were the findings and what was the material considered by the Summary Trial Inquiry Committee and unless it is supplied to him, he would not be in a position to exercise his statutory right. This aspect is overlooked both by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the Tribunal. In our view, without going into merits we can dispose of this petition by directing the appellate authority to supply a copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee to the petitioner to enable him to prefer an appeal; while not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner must exhaust that remedy first. We order accordingly. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
5. In view of the fact that the petitioner could not have and could not avail of the statutory remedy available to him because of the non-supply of copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee, we would expect appellate authority not to be technical on question of limitation provided for preferring appeal. The period, during which the petitioner was pursuing other remedies to obtain copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee, has to be taken into account while considering the condonation of delay caused in preferring appeal.
(A L DAVE, J.) (A J DESAI, J.) sompura Top