Balakrishnan Nair, J.

W.P.(C) No. 27950 of 2007

The applicant in O.A.No.593 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents in that Original Application. Challenging Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal in the said Original Application, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner joined the service of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research(in short "the I.C.A.R.") as Land Surveyor and Head Draughtsman in 1958. In 1975, he was granted leave for two years to go to Oman. On the expiry of the leave period, the petitioner requested for extension of leave. But, there was no response. Though, the respondents claimed that they have issued letters to the petitioner to re-join duty, in his last known address, no such letters are available in the files. Finally, the petitioner was informed by communication dated 29.1981 that his services were terminated with effect from 211.1980.

3. Challenging the said order, he filed a Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The said writ petition was later transferred to the Jodpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal as T.A. 17 of 1989. The said petition was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 210.1992 quashing the termination order, with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Later, an enquiry was held into the charge of unauthorised absence against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were partly proved. Accepting the report, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 8.1996, dismissed the petitioner from service. He challenged the said order before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1832 of 1997. During the pendency of the Original Application, he reached the age of superannuation on 31.1998. The Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 8.2000, setting aside the dismissal order and remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, to take a fresh decision in the matter. Thereafter, he was served with a show cause notice, along with a copy of the enquiry report, on 7.4.2001, calling upon him to furnish his objections to the enquiry report.

4. The petitioner challenged the said notice by filing Original Application No. 80 of 2002 before the C.A.T. which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 14.2002, directing the Disciplinary Authority to consider the reply of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority reconsidered the matter and issued Ext.P1 order dated 20.5.2002, dismissing the petitioner from service. Though, he filed O.A.No.248 of 2002 before the Jodpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal against that order, the same was withdrawn without prejudice to his right, to invoke the departmental remedy available to him against the dismissal order.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P1 before the statutory Appellate Authority, namely the Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 order dated 30.10.1003. He attempted a revision against that order before the Director General of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The said revision petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 order dated 25.2004.

6. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3, the petitioner filed O.A.No.593 of 2004 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The copy of the Original Application is Ext.P4. The petitioner, mainly, contended that since he had already crossed the age of superannuation on 31.1998, thereafter the Disciplinary Authority could not have dismissed him from service. Of course, the proceedings under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules could have been initiated and continued against him or the pending proceeding could have been converted into a proceeding under the said rule. But, even after superannuation and termination of employer-emplo