HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISIONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRi DHIRENDRA IV!!SHRA. J. Writ PetJtionNo. 3328 of200S te^- PETmONER Sukhi Ram, aged about 53 years S/o. Shri Bajala, by caste - Gond, Occupation— Ex-Empioyee Khalasi Helper in C & F/P.P.Yard/BiA. R/o. Paterapaii-kala, Post Office Sendri, Tahsil Saldi Police Station Sakti District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Versus RESPQNDiNTS Union of India, Through the Secretary, IViinistry of Rallway Delhi (india) Generai Manager South East Centra! Railway Bilaspur Dlvision, Bilaspur (C.G.) Senior Divisionai Mechanicai Engineer (Field) South East Centraj Raiiway Bilaspur (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article226/227 ofthe Constitution of India. Present: Shri Ashok Swarnakar, iearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, iearned Centra! Government counsel for the respondents. ORDER (21st February, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard iearnedcounsel forthe parties on admission. (2) Petitioner-Sukhi Ram, has fiied this writ petition for the foijowing reiiefs:- (1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pleased to Issue the writ, order or direction by quashing the order dated 12-05-2005 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Court Sitting at Bilaspur in O.A. No. 1064/2004. (2) That, the Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ, order or direction by quashJng the findings of the D & A inquiry as weli as the results comes after the jnquiry i.e. the order of remova! from service dated 30-04-1997 be quashed, and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petltioner in the same capacity of the Khaiasi helper. (3) That, the Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ, order or direction by quashing the order dated 26.06.1997 and 06/07.01.19980f Senior Divisjonal Mechanical Engineer, Biiaspur. (4) That the Hon'bie Court may kindiy be pleased to issue the writ, order or direction by directing the respondent to pay a!i the arrears of salary with interest at the rate 18% per annum. (5) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ, order or dlrection by directing the respondent to produce the relevant records. (6) Any other relief which the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (7) Cost of the petition may aiso be awarded to the petitioner. (3) The petitioner jn substance is seeking quashing of the order dated 12-05-2005 passed by Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1064/2004. (4) Petitioner - Sukhi Ram, fiied the original appiication before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the following reliefs:- (i) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant on the post of Khalasi Helper. (ii) Direct the respondents to pay all the arrears of salary and ail consequential benefits with 18% interestp.a. (5) The petitioner was seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Wialasi Heiper and to pay ail the arrears of saiary and other consequentlai benefits. (6) Petitioner - Sukhi Ram remained un-authorizedly absent from duty from 02-08-1995 to 03-06-1996. In regard to his absence for a period of about one year, the petitioner did not inform his department. A Departmental inquiry was conductedon the aboye charge wherein the petitioner participated and was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. (7) The Inquiry Officer found the charge of un-authorized absence for a period of about one year proved against the petitjoner. Punishment of removai from service was imposed on t'ne petitioner. The appeal ftled by the petitloner against the punishment order was dismissed on 26-06-1997. The petitioner's revislon petition too was dismissed on 07-01-1999. it was after a period of more than five years that the petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunai against the order of punishment and the dismissal of his appea! and revision by the appellate and revisional authorities. The Central Adminlstrative Tribunai taking note of the fact that the petitioner who was working as Khalasi Heiper remained un-authorizediy absent for a period of one year ; jn the Departmentai inquiry the petitioner participated and was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing ; the charge against him was found proved by the inquiry Officer; the original application was fiied after inordinate delay of more than five years after the dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition, did not find any ground for interference with the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The Tribunal, therefore, passed the impugned judgment dismissing the petitioner's original appiication. (8) Shri Ashok Swarnakar, learned counsei for the petitioner vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in not giving due weight to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the services of a lawyer were not made avaiiabie to the petitioner in the Departmental Inquiry. Learned counsei for the petitioner further submitted that as the petitioner was a Class-IV itliterate empioyee, it was the duty of the respondents - empioyer to provide the Jegal services of a lawyer in the Departmentai Enquiry. (9) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsei for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and the orders of punishment; dismissal of the petitioner's appeai and revision and submitted that the petitioner at the first piace never sought the services of any lawyer in the Departmental Inquiry by making request to the Inquiry Officer ; there is no statutory provlsion requiring the employer to provide legai services to the deiinquent Government Servant in the Departmenta! Inquiry. < (10) We are not at all impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's empioyer ought to have provided him the services of a iawyer in the Departmental inquiry. The charge of un-authorized absence was found proved by the Inquiry Officer on the evidence ted in the Inquiry. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer was affjrmed by the appeiiate authority and the revisional authority. The petitioner filed the original appiication before the Tribunal after a period of more than five years of the dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition. (11) !n view of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment whereby the petitioner's original application was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunai. (12) The writ pet'rtion, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. nimmi Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge