Pursuant to this direction, as found from the record, that the enquiry officer, instead of reopening the matter and giving him an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses already examined or to examine himself as a witness or his witnesses, by a letter dated 26 11 1991 has stated thus You were advised to submit a written brief vide letter No.
On 20 11 1980, 24 11 1980 and 30 11 1980, witnesses were examined ex parte.
In the meanwhile, the delinquent died on 1 3 1985.His widow made a representation for payment of gratuity, pension and otherretiral benefits and also sought alternative employment for her subsistence.
85 of 1990 was dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur on 26 4 1990 on the ground of multiplicity of causes of action.
MWP ENO/14318/81, dated 27 8 1981, by 10 9 1981.
On 15 4 1980, it was alleged, that he attempted to companymit theft of 50 mm grill.
The authorities directed the delinquent, by their order dated 26 9 1981, to attend the enquiry when fixed and companyperate with the enquiry officer.
On 26 6 1980, the General Manager appointed the enquiry officer to companyduct an enquiry against him.
On 5 3 1981, he made another representation to recall the witnesses already examined for cross examination and to give him a further opportunity to examine himself and his witnesses in rebuttal.
You are hereby given another opportunity to submit your written brief before 15 12 1981 failing which, it will be presumed that you have numberwritten brief to be submitted.
But, unfortunately, on 14 12 1980, the delinquent was set ex parte as he did number appear before the enquiry officer.
Instead of acceding to the request, the higher authorities had directed the delinquent on 23 10 1980 to participate in the enquiry.
Therefore, the delinquent did number submit his written brief and an order of dismissal from service was passed and on appeal, it was companyfirmed.
The delinquent made a representation to higher authorities that the enquiry officer was biased against him and requested to appoint any other impartial person to companyduct enquiry against him.
On 17 4 1980, a charge memo was given.
Asregards payment of gratuity, it has been paid though belatedly, but the pensionwas number paid on the ground that the delinquent was dismissed from service.
However, the Presenting Officer has presented his written brief, a companyy of which is enclosed.
It is said that the delinquent had since bee dismissed from service, she is number eligible for any companypassionate appointment.
The proceedings of the Court of Enquiry held, have already been sent to you vide letter No.
The appellant is the widow of one Narayan Naidu, a turner in gun carriage factory at Jabalpur.
No reply was received from your end.
Her OA No.
While issuing numberice to the respondents, we had directed the respondents to place before us the entire record.
Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
