Sastry Vs. Chief Commnr. of Income Tax & Ors  Insc 306 (20 March 2007)
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8558 of 2006) Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN,J.
Heard Mr.T.L.V.Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
Gp.Capt.Karn Singh Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondents.
We have perused the order impugned in this appeal.
According to the appellant, he is retired from service on 30.11.2005.
He is facing a departmental inquiry and the same is pending for a very long
time without being finally disposed of. He has also challenged the charges
framed against him and the said case is also pending before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderbad. Before the High Court, he also made a prayer
for expeditious disposal of the matter pending before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The High Court directed the Central Administrative
Tribunal to consider the request made by the appellant and dispose of the
matter at an early date. Thereafter, an application was filed before the
Tribunal to expedite hearing which was disposed of on 20.03.2006 stating that
there were large number of matters pending prior to the OA filed by the
appellant and, at that stage, it was not inclined to grant early hearing in the
matter and that the applicant may renew his request for early hearing after
three months. This order was passed by the Tribunal on 20.03.2006. The
reasoning given by the Tribunal for not taking up the matter at an early date
is not acceptable to us. The appellant has already superannuated on 30.11.2005.
We, therefore, direct the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad to take up
OA No.788/2005 on priority basis and dispose of the same within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order from this Court.
The High Court also while disposing of the Writ Petition directed the
respondent herein to pay the pension during the pendency of inquiry. It is
stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said direction has not
been complied with. We, therefore, direct the respondent to immediately arrange
to pay the entire arrears of pension after retirement and continue to pay the
Learned counsel for the appellant states that even though a request has
already been made to travel abroad, i.e., to U.S.A. to see the members of his
family but the same was not accepted during the pendency of the proceedings. If
the matter is not disposed of within two months as directed by us now, the
appellant may also make an application to the Tribunal seeking permission to
travel abroad and if such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed
of on merits and in accordance with law.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.