The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the authorities to adhere to the principles of natural justice and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employee before dismissal. The court also emphasized the need for proper service of notices and the duty to render meaningful and effective assistance to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Mishra, J. - Admit.

2. By filing this writ petition, the Applicant/ Petitioner, a former employee of the East Cost Railways, assails the final order dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) dismissing his Original Application i.e. O.A. No.437 of 2012 mainly on the ground of delay and being barred by law of limitation.

In the aforesaid Original Application, the Applicant/ Petitioner being the Applicant had assailed the order of punishment dated 04.02.2004 imposing punishment of removal from service passed by the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.3- Production Engineer and Disciplinary Authority, Office of the Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage Repair Workshop, East Coast Railway, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Disciplinary Authority' for brevity) on the ground of gross violation of Rules, violation of principle of nature justice and the punishment being highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The charge against the Applicant/ Petitioner was that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duties for about 2 ^ years i.e. from 12.12.2000 to 12.05.2003.

3. The facts, mostly undisputed in this case, are as follows:

The Applicant/ Petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi by the Respondents/ Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 on 04.04.1983. In the year 1985, he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk. While continuing as such, it is alleged that he remained absent unauthorizedly, without any intimation to the authorities regarding his whereabouts with effect from 12.12.2000 to 12.05.2003. Accordingly, charge-sheet under Section 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity), vide Memorandum No.Mesw/M/D&A/KRS-74/1571 dated 12.05.2003 was issued to the Applicant/ Petitioner. He submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations leveled against him. But, the Disciplinary Authority without giving much weightage to the said written statement of defence, appointed the Inquiring Officer to conduct a domestic inquiry into the matter. The Inquiring Officer without giving any notice to the Applicant/ Petitioner, concluded the enquiry and submitted his report holding him guilty. The Disciplinary Authority without supplying him a copy of the report of the Inquiring Officer, as required under the Rules, vide order dated 04.02.2004 imposed the punishment of removal from service.

The Applicant/ Petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.03.2004, but no decision was communicated to him. He sent several reminders, but, it did not yield any result. He submitted the last reminder on 12.09.2010, but no order was communicated to him. Finally, he filed Original Application No.437 of 2012 before the Tribunal on 30.05.2012.

4. The Respondents/ Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 submitted that after taking resort to initiate a Disciplinary Proceeding, Memorandum of charge under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity), was framed and sent to the applicant in his address available in the service record but the same was returned undelivered. As such, as per the Rules, in presence of witnesses the same was pasted in the notice board.

Thereafter, the Inquiring Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and letter was sent to the applicant in that regard but the same was returned undelivered with postal remark that 'addressee always absent'. As notices were returned unserved repeatedly, the Inquiring Officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted its report holding the charge as proved. The same was sent to the applicant but again it was returned unserved.

In view of the above, as there was no other option for the Disciplinary Authority, he considered the report and other materials available on record and vide order dated 04.02.2004 imposed the punishment of remo