Union of India (UOI) vs M. Karunanidhi-1 and The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and other subordinate officers against the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 457 of 2005. The said Original Application was filed by the present Respondent No.

1, challenging the order of removal dated 05.09.2000, removing him from the post of SG Mailman under the present petitioner No. 2. The order

of removal was passed on the ground that the concerned employee had remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period, without taking any prior

permission and without filing any application. In the departmental proceedings, initially the employee had remained absent. But, subsequently, after

he had appeared, he had not taken any specific stand, but simply admitted his absence and had prayed for lenience. However, the departmental

authority thought it fit to remove him from service. Thereafter, the Original Application was filed, along with an application for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. The main ground in the petition for condonation of delay was to the effect that the petitioner had lost his mental

balance for quite a long period, as his wife had deserted him and he had to look after two minor daughters, minor son and aged mother. It is also

apparent from the observation of the Tribunal that even at times, the petitioner was going away from his house without informing any body and he

was being secured by the relatives and the well wishers. In this back ground, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had lost his

mental balance for quite some time and therefore, instead of order of removal, the punishment should be reduced to one of compulsory retirement

so that the person would be able to draw some retirement benefits. It is also to be noted that prior to the order of removal, the petitioner had

worked for 22 years as Mailman and overall period of about 32 years. Having regard to all these aspects, the Tribunal taking an overall and

obviously humanitarian view of the matter has modified the order of punishment.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. It is first stated by him that there was long delay of more than five years in

filing the Original Application and such delay has been condoned without considering any reasons. Even though there may be some justification in

such criticism advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to reverse the order of the Tribunal on this account,

particularly, when the order has been passed, condoning the delay in aid of substantive justice. Even though the Tribunal thought that the delay was

for 312 days and not more, the fact remains that the petitioner had lost his mental balance and he was going away from his house. By taking a

sympathetic view of the matter, the order of condonation of delay cannot be found fault with.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners also seriously contended that once the delinquency of unauthorised absence had been found, the

Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the

Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Mohammed Ayub Naz, . In the said case, it was found that the employee was deliberately

absent for long period. In such a scenario, the Supreme Court held that the removal order should be passed in respect of public servants who

remained deliberately absent.

In the present case, in view of the finding that the petitioner had lost his mental balance, we cannot hold that his absence was deliberate. Since a

humanistic view has been taken by the Tribunal in its discretion, we do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary order passed by the

Tribunal should be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly, when there is a finding by the Tribunal that the

employee had lost mental balance. Apart from the above, it is also found that the wife of the first respondent had deserted him and he had the

additional burden of bringing up two daughters and a minor son. Having regard to these aspects, we do not think that this is a fit case where we

should interfere. However, since the first respondent himself had approached the Tribunal after a long lapse of five years, it was not proper for the

Tribunal to grant pension from the date of removal. We modify such order and we direct that the order regarding grant of pension would be

operative from the date of presentation of the Original Application before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, in modification of the order passed by the Tribunal, we direct that the first respondent shall be deemed to have been compulsorily

retired from service with effect from the date of removal, i.e. on 05.09.2000 and he will be entitled to pensionary and other retirement benefits, by

including his service upto 05.09.2000. However, since the respondent No. 1 had approached the Tribunal after a lapse of five years, no amount

towards pension shall be payable to him for the period from 05.09.2000 till the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal and pension

shall be payable from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal.

In course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted showing the details of the amount payable to the first respondent. The

learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted details of Eligible Pension payable to the first respondent, which is extracted hereunder:

Name of the Ex-employee : Shri M. Karunanidhi/1

Designation : SG Mailman

Scale of pay : Rs. 2650-65-3300-70-4,000

Date of birth : 29.09.1950

Date of appointment : 25.08.1971

Date of superannuation : 30.09.2010AN

Total length of service

excluding Dies-Non period

i. Upto superannuation

(Presuming the period from : 31 years, 1 month & 9 days

the date of removal to date

of superannuation as

qualifying service)

ii. Upto date of removal : 22 years & 13 days

Pension : Rs. 2,720/- p.m.

i. If retired on superannuation

(pension calculated by

giving increment for each year

for 9 years i.e. the period

taken as Qualifying service from

the date of removal upto

superannuation).

Dearness relief : 21% as on date

ii. If retired on the date of removal : Pension : Rs. 1,275/-p.m.

from service (5.9.2000) DR. 41% Rs.523/-p.m.

Eligible for minimum pension (as on 1.7.2000)

of Rs. 1,275/- only) and the

minimum pension is

Rs. 1913/-w.e.f.1.4.2004)

(i) Pension from 12.1.05 : Rs.1913/- p.m.+D.R. (Rs. 326/-

to 17.03.06 from 12.1.05 to 30.06.05 @

(presumed that the 17% & Rs. 402/- from

official retired on 1.7.2005 to 17.3.2006@

the date of removal 21%

Total Pension from 12.1.2005

to 17.3.2006(for 15 months) : Rs. 27,152+ 1,840 _3,436=

Rs. 32,428/-

Therefore, the first respondent will be entitled to pension as indicated in paragraph 9 of the said chart with effect from 12.01.2005. The arrears

from 12.01.2005 till 17.03.2006 shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and thereafter shall be said to the

first respondent, as per the normal procedure. The order of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.

The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above said terms. No costs. The connected WPMP is closed.