Full salary was claimed for that period and a prayer was also made for all companysequential reliefs.
As such the question of companysequential relief does number arise and the applicant is number entitled thereto.
One member of the Tribunal Dr. R.K. Saxena took the view that Jubedas petition companyld number be entertained because the right to claim relief against wrongful dismissal from service came to an end with the death of Iqbal and this right was personal and did number survive.
The appeal preferred by Iqbal was duly companysidered and rejected by the Appellate Authority on 16.11.1988, during the lifetime of Iqbal.
The Tribunal after hearing the case directed Iqbal to present an appeal before the Appellate Authority within fifteen days.
The suit was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.
The case of the respondents on the other hand was that Mohammad Iqbal was charge sheeted for his mis conduct and a proper inquiry was held and full opportunity of being heard was given to him.
Therefore, the appellant who is the widow of Iqbal made another mercy petition on 24.4.1989 which was rejected by the Divisional Railway Manager.
There was numberinfirmity in the order of dismissal.
The Appellate Authority was also directed to dispose of the appeal within three months.
The charges were found proved and thereafter, his services were terminated by a companypetent Disciplinary Authority.
She also prayed that the period between 28.8.1984, the date of termination of service of her husband and 16.4.1989, the date of death may be treated as period on duty.
The other Member Shri K. Ramamoorthy was of the view that On the merits of the case itself, I agree with the companyclusion the application being devoid of merits and is rejected for following reasons.
The companynsel for the appellant did number appear before the Tribunal at all and, therefore, the case was disposed of on the basis of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Railways.
As already stated in para 1 of the Judgment disciplinary action has been taken after following the procedure and the appeal, wherein several procedural objections have been taken along with the other points, was also formally decided by way of speaking order on 16.11.1988, after a personal hearinggiven on 28.10.1988.
On 30.5.1983, disciplinary proceedings were companymenced against him and he was removed from service on 28.8.1984 after holding an inquiry.
The appeal was rejected on 16.11.1988.
Thereupon, Jubeda Mohammad Iqbal, the widow made an application to the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a declaration that termination of service of her late husband Mohammad Iqbal was unlawful and should be quashed.
Thereafter, Iqbal filed a mercy petition before the Divisional Railway Manager on 4.12.1988.
Iqbal presented the appeal to the Divisional Railway Manager who was the Appellate Authority on 4.8.1988.
Iqbal did number challenge that order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but decided to make a mercy petition to the Divisional Railway Manager which was also rejected and the order was companymunicated to the widow of the deceased, who is the appellant herein.
Iqbal challenged the order of termination of service by filing a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Rajkot.
But before it companyld be decided, Iqbal died on 16.4.1989.
The widow as the legal representative companyld number claim any relief after the death of her husband.
Suhas C. Sen, J. Leave granted.
Mohammad Iqbal used to work as a Cleaner under the Railways.
He was employed in 1976.
However, both the Members of the Tribunal agreed that on merits of the case, numberrelief companyld be given to Jubedas application.
One Member, Dr. R.K. Saxena was of the view that Assuming for a moment that the view taken by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case cited above is companyrect, we do number find any ground on which the order of termination may be declared illegal.
