Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Pravinbhai Devjibhai Joshi

B.J. Shethna, J.—Learned Central Government Counsel Shri Iqbal A. Shaikh appearing for the petitioner - Union of India and others, vehemently submitted that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad ( for short �Tribunal�)committed an error in allowing O.A. No. 379 of 2005 filed by the respondent - original applicant.

Shri Shaikh submitted that, in all, 180 days leave can be sanctioned. Therefore, leave of 53 days from 6.2.1995 to 30.3.1995, leave of 59 days from 3.4.1995 to 31.5.1995 and leave of 56 days from 6.6.1995 to 31.7.1995 was sanctioned by the Authority. However, the department could not sanction leave for more than 180 days. Therefore, his leave of 61 days from 1.8.1995 to 30.9.1995 was not sanctioned. Under the circumstances, when the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from service of the applicant, then the Tribunal ought not to have interfered.

This case has a chequered history. Initially, charge-sheet dated 15.10.1996 was served upon the original applicant for availing more than 180 days'' leave. On conclusion of the inquiry, order of removal from service was passed. Against which, the departmental appeal was filed. The same was also rejected. Those orders of removal and dismissal of his appeal passed by the Appellate Authority were challenged by the original applicant before the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 516 of 1999. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.2001 quashed and set aside the order of removal as well as the order of the Appellate Authority and ordered the present petitioners to reinstate the original applicant in service on the same post by giving lump-sum compensation. However, while allowing the application, the learned Tribunal observed that it would be open to the respondents - present petitioners to hold a fresh inquiry.

Though order was passed on 8.3.2001 by the learned Tribunal in first O.A. No. 516/1999, surprisingly, the department did not issue a fresh charge-sheet till 12.4.2004. Thus, after the order dated 8.3.2001 was passed by the learned Tribunal permitting the present petitioners to hold a fresh inquiry against the original applicant, they waited for a period of more than three years in issuing a fresh charge-sheet. From the order passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that the fresh charge framed against the applicant was not in accordance with the instructions of the Department of Post on the subject. The learned Tribunal also observed that though the applicant Shri Joshi applied for extension of leave from 1.8.1995 to 30.9.1995 for a period of 61 days, it was not sanctioned only on the ground that this time the application was not sent in a proper format.

It is true that this time without exhausting remedy of appeal, the applicant straightway approached the learned Tribunal, but on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly entertained the application though the applicant had not availed remedy of the appeal before the Appellate Authority against the fresh order of removal.

It may be stated that no explanation whatsoever is coming forth from the department regarding gross delay of three years in issuing the fresh charge-sheet. That itself is sufficient ground for us not to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is very narrow and limited, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of decisions. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that even error on facts or law committed by the Tribunal cannot be corrected by the High Court in its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court can only interfere when the learned Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error, which is not there in this petition. In fact, in our considered opinion, neither any error on facts nor law is committed by the learned Tribunal.

While allowing the application, the learned Tribunal gave cogent reasons, with which, we are in complete agreement.

In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby summarily rejected.