JUDGEMENT
S. Saghir Ahmad, J. -
(1.)The original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay and has since been replaced by the present respondents, was appointed as unskilled labour in the Naval Armament Depot, Bombay. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Gun Repair Labourer, Grade-I. On 25th October, 1973, he was declared quasi-permanent on that post with effect from 1-8-1966. He was, however, removed from service by order dated 19th August, 1985 after regular departmental enquiry. This order was upheld in the Departmental appeal. The order of removal as also the appellate order were challenged by him before the Tribunal on the grounds, inter alia, that neither the charge sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon him and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. The tribunal has found that the charge sheet which was issued to him by registered post was returned with the postal endorsement "not found." while the show-cause notice was published straightway in Dainiki Sagar, Navshakti. The Tribunal found the service of the charge-sheet and the show cause notice on the respondent as insufficient and, therefore, set aside the order dated 19th August, 1985, by which he was removed from service.
(2.)Learned counsel for Union of India has strenuously urged that since the respondent had been absenting himself from the office unauthorisedly, the service of charge-sheet sent to him through registered post should be treated as sufficient. This contention cannot be accepted.
(3.)Respondent was an employee of the appellant. His personal file and the entire service record was available in which his home address also had been mentioned. The charge sheet which was sent to the respondent was returned with the postal andorsement "not found." This indicates that the charge sheet was not tendered to him even by the postal authorities. A document sent by registered post can be treated to have been served only when it is established that it was tendered to the addressee. Where the addressee was not available even to the postal authorities, and the registered cover was returned to the sender with the endorsement "not found," it cannot be legally treated to have been served. The appellant should have made further efforts to serve the charge sheet on the respondent. Single effort, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as sufficient. That being so, the very initiation of the departmental proceedings was bad. It was ex-parte even from the stage of charge sheet which, at no stage, was served upon the respondent.