ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:-

“(a) To quash the punishment order dated 25.05.2001/11.06.2001 issued by Assistant Divisinal Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Kashipur and also the file noting dated 14.04.2001 made by the aforesaid authority (respondent No.

4) removing the applicant from the post of Track Man in the Gang No 8LK under Section Engineer, (P.Way) Lal Kuan (Annexure No. A-1 and A-2) respectively to compilation No. 1 of the original application. (b) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the applicant on the post of Track Man in Gang No. 8LK and pay him his regular monthly salary including the arrears of salary within a period to be specified by Hon’ble Tribunal.

(c) To issue any order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) To award the cost of the application to the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant initially entered in the Railway in the year 1975 as Casual Labour and got temporary status on 16.08.1984. A screening for permanent posting was done in the year 1992 and he was posted as Trackman under Senior Section Engineer (P. Way) Lal Kuan. A major penalty chargesheet was issued against the applicant for unauthorized absence from duty, which was not received by him.

Thereafter enquiry was initiated against him without giving opportunity to applicant to get the copy of the major penalty chargesheet. Inquiry officer in his enquiry report submitted that personal file of the applicant was not made available in the office and as such the enquiry could not be completed. Due to non-relieving from the duty by the supervisor, applicant could not attend the enquiry on 21.01.2001. Thereafter, applicant attended the enquiry on 05.04.2001 and explained the reasons of his absence from duty that he was injured during duty in the year 1991-1992, thus he was unable to attend the duty. Finally the applicant was debarred from performing his duties and no salary was paid to him. Son of applicant in the year 2010 wrote a letter under RTI Act to the department in regard to 3 | P a g e allow the applicant to perform the duty and to pay his salary. In reply to application, respondents supplied the copy of the dismissal order of the applicant dated 25.05.2001/11.06.2001 and order dated 14.4.2001.

3. We have heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vimal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for respondents raised his preliminary objection and submitted that the O.A. is barred by period of limitation and be dismissed. It has been argued by learned counsel for respondents that applicant was dismissed from service in the year 2001 whereas the applicant filed the present OA in the year 2010, after a delay of about 9 years. It is also argued that impugned order has not been assailed in the departmental appeal, thus, it has attained finality.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for applicant submitted that impugned order and other related papers have not been served upon the applicant and as such the applicant was unable to initiate any proceedings before the court of law. The copies of impugned orders have been obtained by the son of applicant under RTI Act and as such delay occurred in filing the OA is not intentional on the part of applicant and the same deserves to be condoned. It is further argued that delay is not deliberate but it is due to ignorance of law. Applicant is living in penury condition. Thus referring to the contents of the OA, it was further argued that delay occurred in filing the OA be condoned and OA be deemed to have been filed within the limitation period. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that no opportunity was given to defend his case to the appli