Maya Devi vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne (J):

Ld Counsel for the applicant is present.

None appears for the respondents.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

Ld Counsel for the applicant submits that the husband of the applicant, namely, Raj Kumar was working in the post of Khalasi Helper under SSE/BWN, Eastern Railway. He went to his native place for treatment of his aged father, who had been suffering from cancer. But, within a few days his father died and for the last rites of his deceased father, he could not attend his normal duties only for 15 days i.e. from 13.05.1999 to 28.05.1999. The employee while he was in his native home informed the authority concerned by sending his letter through one of his friends and prayed for extension of his leave. But authority concerned did not take any action on that letter. Thereafter, one set of charge-sheet was issued upon him by alleging the charges of unauthorized absent of 15 days, which is against all the cannons of service law as the said charge sheet was issued for the alleged period when the deceased employee was present at his aged father's deathbed and subsequently his father died. The authority concerned whimsically, purposefully, deliberately and arbitrary conducted the DA&R proceeding and ultimately removed him from the service, relying on the evidences of the employee's own statement. After exhausting all the procedural remedies by sending representations to the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the employee submitted his revisionary application to the Divisional Railway Manager Eastern Railway, Howrah (Revisionary Authority). The Revisionary Authority after perusing the matter of harsh and inappropriate punishment of removal from service for the absent of 15 days only for attending one's father's last rites and all other relevant documents was pleased to direct the Appellate Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority to review the quantum of punishment on 20.09.2006. The employee thereafter ran a long race from post to pillar and submitted a lot of representations to the Disciplinary Authority as well as to the Appellate Authority for taking necessary action for effecting the Divisional Railway Manager's order and his re-instatement in the service. But the authority concerned did nothing in this regard.

Meanwhile, all on sudden the employee (husband of the applicant) died on 06.11.2008. The family of the deceased employee lost their bread and butter at the punishment of the deceased employee and lastly at his death.

On behalf of the deceased employee the applicant being his widow submitted several representations to the competent authorities for setting aside and/or quashing the impugned order of punishment and to execute the solemn order of the Revisionary Authority, but none of the authorities took any action for setting aside the impugned punishment order. Seeing no other alternative the widow of the deceased employee approached this Tribunal, by way of, OA No. 248 of 2016 which was dismissed by this Tribunal. The applicant once again moved to this Tribunal, by way of, OA No. 918 of 2016. This Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide order dtd. 27.11.2019 was pleased to grant liberty to the applicant to challenge the punishment order in accordance with law. In the meantime, she preferred an appeal on 15.09.2020 before the General Manager, being the highest authority of the Eastern Railway his kind perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and to and setting aside the impugned order of punishment along with all consequential benefits. However, the same has not been considered. Seeing no other alternative the applicant has filed the instant OA challenging the punishment order dtd. 10.10.2000 issued by the DME (D)/ BWN.

It is noted from records that objecting to the relief(s) sought for by the applicant in the OA, the respondents have already filed a detailed reply. However, no rejoinder has been filed by the applicant refuting the averments of the reply filed by the respondents.

Heard.

Admittedly, the deceased husband of the applicant was absent unauthorisedly for 15 days on the ground of his father’s hospitalization due to bad health condition and thereafter for last rites on his demise (as stated in the OA). For a genuine reason the respondent authorities initiated the disciplinary action which ended up with the removal of the applicant’s husband (now deceased) from service. Even though the applicant is otherwise eligible and entitled for sympathetic consideration for grant of pension, however, the same has not been considered. The deceased employee (applicant’s husband) submitted a mercy petition before the competent authority on 03.07.2006. Pursuant to the same although the Suburban Railway Manager for DRM/ E. Rly. vide communication dtd. 20.09.2006 advised the CME/ E. Rly. to consider the punishment of the husband of the applicant sympathetically, the same was not done by the respondents.

We have perused the Office Order dtd. 07.06.2010 (Annexure-A1). Vide the said order, the competent authority while removing the husband of the applicant along 03 others from service, had granted compassionate allowance to the said 04 employees and the claim of the deceased employee had been protected following the rules.

It is to be noted that the impugned punishment order was passed back in the year 2000 and the husband of the applicant died in the year 2008. In the meantime when the husband of the applicant was alive, the impugned punishment order was never challenged or tested before the Courts of law. Now, the attempt has been made by the applicant (wife of the deceased employee) to challenge the impugned punishment order in the instant OA.

We are of the view that the respondents have already considered and protected the interest of the husband of the applicant, on his removal from service, by granting him compassionate allowance. As far as challenging the impugned punishment order dtd. 10.10.2000 in the instant OA (which has been filed in the year 2020) is concerned, it is hopelessly barred by limitation.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No cost.