AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. B. Bajanthri, J
Petitioner has assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, CAT) dated 01.02.2022 passed in O.A. No. 47 of 2022. He remained unauthorized absent for certain alleged period from 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011. In this regard, his grievance relating to payment of salary has been rejected in the year 2013-2014. Thereafter, he was pursing his certain grievance with the respondents. The official
respondent proceeded to modify the earlier decision dated 28.01.2014 to the extent that absence period from 09.01.2011 to 12.01.2011 has been modified to 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011 on 08.02.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the rectified order dated 28.01.2014 issued on 08.02.2021, petitioner preferred Original Application before the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna. The learned Tribunal proceeded to reject the petitioner’s Original Application No. 47 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 on the sole ground of limitation. Hence, the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had a cause of action with reference to rectified order dated 28.01.2014 on 08.02.2021. Therefore, cause of action accrued to the petitioner is with effect from 08.02.2021 and he has right to challenge before the CAT on or before 07.07.2022 in the light of Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The same has not been appraised by the CAT. It is submitted that no enquiry has been ordered before treating the period from 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011 as “No Work No Pay”. Remaining unauthorized absent amounts to misconduct. In this regard if the authority intended to take action against employee to the extent that he was not entitled to salary attached to the post for that particular period, minimum requirement was to hold the departmental enquiry for imposition of minor penalty to the extent of issuance of show-cause notice and seeking explanation from the concerned employee. If there are disputed issues in the alleged charge and reply to the aggrieved person, in such circumstances, domestic enquiry was warranted to prove that unauthorized absence was intentional or beyond his control. In the absence of holding departmental enquiry for remaining unauthorized absent from 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011, the respondents could not have taken a decision that the petitioner is not entitled to pay attached to the post during that particular period in the absence of proving the alleged misdeeds in an appropriate manner namely in a departmental enquiry.
As on this day, he has attained his age of superannuation and retired from service. The alleged claim relates back to 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011, therefore, it is not a fit case to remand the matter to the CAT to decide on merit.
Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we are compelled to pass orders on merit. On merit, it is evident that impugned action dated 28.01.2014 read with 08.02.2021, it is evident that such a decision is taken behind the back of the petitioner to the extent that no departmental enquiry has been ordered to prove that petitioner remained unauthorized absent from the period 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011.
In the light of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned decision of the authorities read with the CAT order dated 01.02.2022 passed in O.A. No. 47 of 2022 and they are set aside.
In the result, petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary attached to the post during the period 09.01.2011 to 12.07.2011, the same shall be calculated and disbursed in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Writ petition stands allowed.