Seema Katyal vs Union Of India And Anr.

Sunil Gaur, J

Petitioner’s appeal of 21st February, 2006 (Annexure P-11) is said to be pending before the Chairman of second respondent. It is

petitioner’s case that despite reminders (Annexures P-12 to P-14), the fate of petitioner’s appeal is not known. It is pointed out that as per

RTI information (Annexure P-16) received on 22nd December, 2010, no record/file of petitioner is available and petitioner had preferred an appeal

under RTI Act on 30th October, 2013 which was responded to vide order of 9th December, 2013 (Annexure P-24) wherein it was disclosed that

petitioner’s appeal of 21st February, 2006 is not available in the Establishment Section of second respondent.

It is also the case of petitioner that he approached Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIC’) on 21st August, 2014

through an application (Annexure P-33). Vide order of 27th November, 2015 under Right to Information Act, 2005, a direction was issued to Central

Public Information Officer to recheck the records of second respondent and the office of the Chairman of second respondent and to file an affidavit

regarding the outcome of such rechecking. The Central Public Information Officer had intimated CIC that on rechecking, no information is available

about petitioner’s appeal. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide application of 10th August, 2016 petitioner had sought personal hearing

from Chairman of second respondent but to no avail and this led petitioner to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal

which as per order of 18th September, 2017 (Annexure P-40) has not been entertained by observing that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain

petitioner’s application.

Despite service of advance notice, none appears on behalf of second respondent.

Upon hearing, I find that the factum of petitioner’s filing appeal in February, 2006 is borne out from respondent’s Dak Register of the year

2006 (Annexure P-22 colly).

Since it is the case of petitioner that her communication of 10th August, 2016 (Annexure P-38) to Chairman of second respondent has not been

responded to, therefore it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to second respondent to treat petitioner’s communication

of 10th August, 2016 (Annexure P-38) as an appeal/representation, within a period of 6 weeks and personal hearing as sought by petitioner be

provided and thereafter a speaking order be passed by second respondent in relation to petitioner’s grievance against order of 10th January, 2006

vide which penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon petitioner. The outcome of the communication (Annexure P-38) be made known to

petitioner within 2 weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.

Second respondent be apprised with this order forthwith to ensure compliance of this order.

This petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.