http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3024 of 2007

PETITIONER: Ishwar Singh

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/07/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO 3024 OF 2007. (Arising out of SLP) No.13110 of 2006)

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.                  1.      Leave granted.

2.      After the notice was issued by this Court on the instant  Special Leave Petition on 18th of August, 2006, the petition again  came up for hearing on 23rd of April, 2007 when the following  order was passed:          "It is stated that the petitioner (Constable- Driver) was dismissed from service and his case  was that there was only one day’s delay in  reporting for duty and there was also a justifiable  reason of death of his father. In the facts and  circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate  if the respondent-Union of India considers his case  sympathetically if he can be reinstated in service  without back wages."

3.      Departmental proceedings were initiated against the  appellant and the inquiry officer returned a finding of guilt against  him. The disciplinary authority, relying on the said finding of the  inquiry officer, agreed with the same and imposed a penalty of  dismissal from service on the appellant.          4.      Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant  challenged the same before the concerned statutory authorities.  Finally the order of dismissal was challenged before the Central  Administrative Tribunal which also dismissed the application of  the appellant on the ground that the same was time barred and that  no reasonable explanation had been given by the appellant for  preferring the appeal belatedly.  5.      Challenging the order of the Central Administrative  Tribunal, a writ petition was moved before the High Court.  The  High Court also dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the  following finding :         "We have gone through the records and  having heard the learned counsel for the parties,  we find that there was no reason for the petitioner  in not approaching the court/tribunal in terms of  the statement made by the respondents in their  letter dated 12th of June, 2001. It was specifically  mentioned in the said communication sent to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

petitioner by the respondents that he now has a  remedy to move the court against the order of  punishment of the disciplinary authority and also  as against the order passed by the appellate  authority. The fact that no revision would he as  against the said order was also brought to his  notice. Despite the said fact, the petitioner went on  filing representation after representation. The said  representations were not statutory. The filing of  such representations is not provided for. The  petitioner had all the options to move the Tribunal  for redressal of his grievances. He did not exercise  such option expeditiously. He slumbered over the  matter and did not avail the remedy available to  him"    

6.      It is this order of the Division Bench of the High Court  which the appellant has challenged by way of a special leave  petition in which leave has been granted.  As noted herein earlier,  the matter came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court on 23rd  of April, 2007, when it was observed that the dismissal from  service of the appellant was due to one day’s delay in reporting for  duty and there was also a justifiable reason of death of his father.  Considering this aspect of the matter this Court thought it fit to  direct the Union of India-respondents to consider the case of the  appellant sympathetically and if he could be reinstated in service  without back wages.  

7.      The matter came up for hearing before this Bench on 9th of  July, 2007 when the learned counsel appearing for the respondents  submitted on instruction that in view of the observations made by  this Court on 23rd April, 2007 respondents would have no  objection to reinstate the appellant in service without payment of  back wages. Such being the stand taken by the respondents and in  view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the  appellant that in the event he is reinstated he would not claim back  wages, we direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in  service within one month from the date of communication of this  order. We make it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to  back wages.

8.      In view of the order passed by this Court, the order of  dismissal passed against the appellant is liable to be set aside and  delay in filing the original application before the Central  Administrative Tribunal must be condoned. Accordingly the order  of dismissal from service is set aside and the order passed by the  Central Administrative Tribunal as well as of the High Court  stands set aside and consequent thereupon the original application  filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal also stands  allowed.   The appeal is thus allowed.  There will, however, be no  order as to costs.