Therefore, it had been companytended by the appellant that she had approached the Tribunal within limitation.
The Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to produce the documents, i.e. Inward Register, Postal Acknowledge Due and original letter dated 23.12.1999 and other relevant documents, if any, which would have bearing on the matter by the next date and the matter was directed to be listed on 12.12.2002.
The appellant filed O.A. No.715 of 2002 before the Tribunal on 5.8.2002 for quashing the Articles of charge dated 30.11.1999 and subsequent proceedings on diverse grounds.
The appellant had approached the Tribunal for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and the opposite party had raised the issue of limitation pointing out that she had been served the Articles of Charges at an earlier stage and the averment made by the appellant in this regard was false.
The appellant number only appeared in response to the said numberice personally, but submitted a reply to the show cause numberice companytending that she had number made any false statement for the purpose of securing the order of companydonation of delay and in fact the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 had been served upon her first time on 19.6.2002.
Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 2.9.2003, observing that the High Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the matter placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt.
The Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2002 holding that the appellant was guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal companytempt of the Tribunal and imposed the punishment of imprisonment till rising of the companyrt and a fine of Rs.2,000/ .
In the said Original Application hereinafter referred to as O.A. , the appellant had made a specific averment that the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 was received by her only on 19.6.2002, as the companyy of the same was furnished to her by the 3rd respondent i.e. the Enquiry Officer.
She also made a request to summon certain government records to substantiate her case.
The Tribunal adjourned the case to 19.12.2002.
However, taking abundant caution, she had also filed an application for companydonation of delay.
The reply to the said application was filed by the respondents therein on 18.10.2002, wherein it was companytended that the order dated 30.11.1999 had been issued to the appellant on 2.12.1999 by Registered Post with AD.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench hereinafter called as the Tribunal dated 19.12.2002 in Original Application No.
On 12.12.2002 though learned companynsel for the respondent authorities did number produce any of the required documents, but he produced the photocopies of letter dated 23.12.1999 and the Inward Register.
A Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the State of Karnataka vide order dated 24.1.2001 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, an Indian Administrative Service Officer of Karnataka cadre, on the allegation that she had companymitted certain irregularities in the allotment of wheat under a special programme called the State Funded Wheat Based Nutrition Programme of the Government of India at public distribution system rates to a supplier called M s Nandi Agro Industries Ltd. The said regular enquiry stood initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report dated 31.3.1997.
715 of 2002.
