(F g W 7/ LN THE HQN’BLE HIGLI COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR w.P. {S} No. 5&3!) [2009 i esgondents : 1. Roop Das, S/o. Late 'I‘ulsi Das Aged about 65 years Occupation: Retired Khalasi Helper, PP Yard/C&W/BIA, SE. Railway R/o. Village: Chapora Police Station: Ratanpur Dist: Bilaspur (CG). 2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (MP). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 or THE CONSTITUTION OF INmA R l Petitioners /1. Union of India Through: The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, South Eastern Railway, Rail S‘ ' Bhawan New Delhi. U! '_ The Sr. Divisional Mechanical ‘w “ Q§Q§o°‘“§ B/[Agcl ‘ Engineer South Eastern Railway Biiaspur Dist; Biiaspur (CG). ?;3xe§v"' Coaching Depot Officer, S.E. Railway Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS i HIGH COURT OF QHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: - Hon’ble Shii Satish K. Agnihotri & Hbn’ble Shli Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. W. P, [3) No.5230 0112009 Union of ind and others Respondent§ , V¢rsus Ropp Das and another (Writ petition undegAgticie 228(227 ofmg Constitution of the India) Present: - ‘ shri P. s. Koshy, ‘counsei for the petitioners. shri Ashok Patil..oomsel for respondent No.1. ORDER (amt (Passed on this 04‘” day of February, 2010) By the instant petition, the and validity of orderm dated 26-05-2009 gassed by the Centrai Administrative Tribunal. Jabaipur Bench. Circuit Bench: Bjlaspur (henceforth ”the Tribunal“) in Original Application No.590 of 2008 ”(Annexure'P-t) whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 19-08-1997 Passed bytheappellate authoriy by which the order of termination from service passed by the disqiplinary authority on 27-03-1 997/01 -O4-1 997 against the Etst respondent, was coniirmed. nets have eatted in question the legality (2) Shri P. S. Koshy. learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order dated 26-05-2009 passed by the Tribunal solely on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the original application, even though. the said application tiled (before the Tribunal by the tirst respondent, was barred by limitation. ‘ " @ (3) The submission advanced by Ieamed counsel for the petitioners is that the hrst respondent by tiling Original Application No.490 of 2008 assailed validity of order dated 19-06-1Q7 passed ,byvtha appellate authorityager more than 11 years. He submits that even thoggh earlierthe Tribunalpassed an order on 29- 11-2007 in Original Application No.875/2007. condoning delay in wing the original application and directing competent authority to consider and decide the mercy appeal, if not already decided, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. it does not help thetirst respondentinasmuoh as the appeal of the met respondent wasalready decuedlong back on 19-06- 1 997. (4) Per contra, Shri‘Ashok Patil,‘ leamed counsel for thejrst respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error or pewersrty His submission is that the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation had condoned the delay in tiling the Original Application No.875l2007 and granted liberty to approach the Tribunal, in case he is still aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority. lt' was only in compliance of the order passed in Original Application No.87512007 that vide communication dated 10-12-2007 it was intimated that the appeal had already been decided by the appellate authority vide order dated 19-06-1 997 and that order had not been sewed upon him. (5) We have considered the rival submissions madeby leamed counsel forthe parties and perused the records. a (6) The hrst respondentltited Original Application No.875/2m7 before the Tribunal praying for issuance of direction to consider his case for being treated on dutyyfrom 27—03-1997 up to thedate of his retirement and also to direct the @ . - respondents therein to release the entire payments, salary and other monetary benefits including pension. gratuity. bouus.‘ ptovident fund, etc. Behre the Tribunal. it was contended that, an‘gppeaLwas preferred against the order of punishment date; 27—03499? whichhaswnot been decided by the competent authotitv- Such content'onwas ngtdisspytedkyibe pettioners herein. In that view of the mam. the_leam__e_¢ Tnbunal rac'ordgq ,a, minathgt, thoughmstrespondent approached ‘thelribyngatermordmateqelay._9f several wars but since he _appear]s to be apoorperson gnq:_nas also preferred mercy appeal and there are endorsement of the official of the respoMents on‘ ghg said appeal. condoned the z delay in tilingrthea original appligation. _lt_is important to mention that the Tribunal had passed g ,hi-parte order atterhearing boththe parties i.e. the petitioner and the Erst respondentin the wesentwse ibeTribunai attemmdonhs the delay in mine original! appiiqatbn.mher directed the competent authorty to consider and decide the mercy appeal if that Mappeal has not been decided, treating the same to be a statutory appear! within aperiod of threermonths from the date of - receipt of arcopy oftheorder,‘ bypassinga detailedand reasoned order. Further, z the first respondentqwaswgivenlifberty to approach the Tribunal in ease he is still aggrieved by the, ordet Pessedbvtheoompetent authority. (7) The, aforeoeid order/aiiemedfirreirty as the samewas never chaiiensed by the petitioners The petitioners did not bring to the notice of the Tribunal that the appeal wae:airee:d,yideeideduEiretmgroseopdenr was cgmmunicateé the said order passed in appealwyide communication dated 10-12—2007 stating that his appeal had already been decided earlier vide grder dated 19.064997. r‘ (8) EXeroieine theriihertyrerentedto theiiretresoondent. a fresh petition was med before the Trbunal being Original Application No.490 of 2008 in which, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 26-05-2009 The Tribunal in its a detailed and well reasoned order has reiected the objection with regard to \ , / ”"1 l \ l ,LP @ limitation raised by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has not established either the sem‘oe of the oharge memorandum or the enquiry report or the appellate order passed upon the tirst respondent. (9) Relying upon the verdict‘of the Supreme Court in the mse of M. s. Grewal l e & another Vs. Deep Chand Sood & others. (2001) 8 SCC 151, the teamed Tribunal has held that taking any other view, in the given circumstance. would nt No.1 based on technicalities and that justice cause injustice tothe , H _ oriented approach can not be thwarted based on plea raised by the petitioners. (10) The finding recorded by the Tribunal that thepetitioners did not establish service of appellate order on the tirst respondent and incoming to him. the said order was communicated to him only atter order passed in Original Application No.87512007, vide communication dated 10-12-2007, does not sufter from any jurisdictional error or perversity so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory‘jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, we tind that there is no‘illegality or perversity in the approach of the Tribunal while exercising its discretion in condoning delay and entertaining the petitbn of the hrst respondent on merits. We have also taken note of the fact that the first respondent has ‘alreadyvattained the age of retirement, and therefore, he has been held entitled to pensionary benefits except the pay and allowances for the period from his removal to the date of his normal superannuation.” ‘ (1 1) In the result, the writmpetition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 1‘ L :Lx‘ Sd/— < Sd/— Maninfdra Mohan Shrivastava. 'x z’)’ ‘ * Satish K. Agnihotri: I » Judge l Judge . ,‘mmm