Partly allowed

Union of India v. Smt. Ameena

Rajasthan HC20 May 2019WRES/82/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court restored a dismissed writ petition to original number. The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India and dismissed the other application. The judgment directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits and to consider the proportionality of punishment given the employee's 23 years of service, setting aside previous rejections based on

What did the court decide?

Restoration of WRAT No.82/2019 and dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No.7496/2016; directions to decide appeal on merits; consideration of proportionality of punishment.

Union of India Vs Smt. Ameena — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 82/2019

¶3

and

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7496/2016

¶5

Union Of India & Ors.
----Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Ameena
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Bohra
For Respondent(s) : ---

¶6

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶7

Order

¶8

20/05/2019

¶9

Restoration Application No.82/2019:

¶10

This Court is of the opinion that in the larger interest of justice, the writ petition ought to be restored and it is accordingly restored to its original number in the file of the Court.

¶11

The application is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Civil Writ Petition No.7496/2016:

¶13

The petitioner/Union of India (UOI) is aggrieved by two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (CAT). By the first order, the CAT allowed the application preferred by the private respondent who was later represented by his wife after his death, directing decision by the appellate authority on the merits. By the second order, the review application preferred by the UOI was rejected.

¶14

It was urged that the private respondent had worked for about 23 years in the Union Postal Department and on charges of unauthorised absence, an enquiry was held and punishment of removal from service was imposed on 16.06.1998. His failure to secure redressal through appeal was unsuccessful. The appellate

¶15

[WRES-82/2019]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

authority rejected his plea on the ground of limitation. He approached the CAT and during the pendency of his application, he died and in his stead, his wife was impleaded as his legal representative. The CAT allowed her plea, and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. Later, the UOI preferred a review petition, contending that the deceased employee had approached the President of India by filing a mercy petition, which was declined and this meant that the appellate authority was denuded of its jurisdiction since the President of India is the superior authority. The CAT, however, rejected the review petition.

¶18

This Court has considered the submissions of the petitioner and is of the opinion that no fault can be found either in impugned order of the CAT or in the review order. 4. Accordingly, the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on its merits. The Court is also of the opinion that the appellate authority should itself address on the issue of proportionality of punishment policy, having regarding to the fact that the employee had worked for about 23 years continuously. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

(DINESH MEHTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 18-MohitTak/-

Union of India v. Smt. Ameena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Smt. Ameena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Sunita

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jugal Kishor Ramawat Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Arun Bithu Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhagan Lal Vs Union of India