AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
From the records, it appears that on account of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he came to be removed from service vide order dated 07.02.2012, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
The petitioner filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal without availing of the remedy of appeal as advised in the removal order aforesaid.
This petition was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2016 after almost four years of the order of removal.
A copy of the original application has been supplied to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in paragraph 1 of the application, it has been stated that the application was filed against the said removal notice dated 07.02.2012.
However, in the relief clause, the prayer made was only for arrears amount with interest as per legal provision. No relief therefore was prayed for as per paragraph 8 of the said original application which has been produced before us.
The Tribunal, while proceeding to consider the grievance of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the prayers made in the original application are vague and since the petitioner had been dismissed, he was not entitled for retiral benefits.
What we find is that, as a result of a casual drafting of the original application, the matter was not contested appropriately before the Tribunal and even before this Court. A copy of the order impugned of the Tribunal was not even made part of the record of the second Judge's copy.
With this mixed bag of pleadings, what we further find is that the petitioner on 10.05.2018 sent a letter seeking certain information that was replied to on 13.07.2018 that since no details have been given by the petitioner, no proper reply can be given with regard to his claim of certain payments relating to Provident Fund, Insurance and Gratuity.
The petitioner appears to have responded on 16.04.2019, whereafter on 28.05.2019, the following information was given to the petitioner which is extracted hereinbelow:-
"पूर्व मध्य रेल
पत्रांकः- कार्मिक/आरटीआई एक्ट-05/213/2019/मगल0
दिनांक 28.05.2019
श्री अशोक कमार,
द्वारा श्री प्रिय रंजन प्रसाद, एडवोकेट
पता-रेनू निवास, नार्थ आफ देवी स्थान,
दुजरा, पटना, बिहार-800001
विषयः- सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम- 05 के तहत् अपेक्षित सूचना।
संदर्भः- आपका आवदेन दिनांक 10.05.2018 इस कार्यालय को दिनांक 10.04.2019 को प्राप्त हआ है।
उपरोक्त के आलोक में आपको सूचित किया जाता है कि आपका सेवा पस्तिका अर्हक सेवा के विदिक्षा हेतु दिनांक 27.05.2019 को लेखा विभाग में भेजा गया है, विदिक्षा पश्चात निपटारा अनुभाग में भेजा जायेगा।
ह0/-
(गोपाल मंडल)
मकाधि
कृते वरीय मंडल कार्मिक अधिकारी
सह
केन्द्रीय मंडल जन सूचना अधिकारी
पूर्व मध्य रेल, मगलसराय"
The department, therefore, appears to be alive to the claim of the petitioner with regard to certain pecuniary benefits or payments to which he may be entitled in accordance with rule or is still in examination.
In this background and the manner in which the litigation had been conducted, we find no reason now to enter into the merits or otherwise of the order dated 07.02.2012 against which no appeal was also filed within time.
It is open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law but so far as the present writ petition is concerned, we dispose off the matter with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority which the petitioner's counsel states is respondent No. 5.
Let respondent No. 5 take a decision with regard to any payments that may be due to the petitioner consequent upon his removal, in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
The petition stands disposed off.