UNION OF INDIA Vs. R REDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Railway employees working in Loco Running Staff, of different zones numbering approximately 800, were dismissed under Rule 14(2) of Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for their participation in Loco Running Staff Association strike in January 1981. In each of these cases the disciplinary authority held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Since then most of the employees have been pursuing their remedy by way of appeals, revisions, writ petitions and claim petitions. They have also been making effort politically to get themselves reinstated. The legal battle has been long one. Some of it is noticed in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (referred as CAT, Hyderabad. Other orders impugned are passed by CAT, Jodhpur and CAT, Chandigarh. Appeal Numbers 4681-82 of 1992 and 4651-4680 of 1992 arise out of the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad. Earlier the employees challenged their dismissal by way of writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Some of these petitions were allowed as the appellate authority had passed non-speaking orders. Others were dismissed. Against the orders dismissing the writ petitions the employees filed a review petition which was allowed in view of decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patal, (1985) 3 SCC 398 and a direction was given to the appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh in light of observations made by this Court in Satyavir Singh vs. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 252 and Ram Chander vs. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 103. The appellate authority once again maintained the order of dismissal. It has been set aside by the CAT both for failure to apply mind and absence of any material justifying dismissal. Following directions were issued :

(2.) Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the order of CAT, Jodhpur. The employees working in Loco Running Sheds of Jodhpur had challenged their order of dismissal by way of appeals. As the appeals were not decided within reasonable time they filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court which were transferred to this Court on an application made by the Union of India. All these petitions were disposed of along with the decision in Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416). In view of the observation made in that decision the employees whose appeal had been rejected during pendency of the writ petition filed revision before the revising authority which was dismissed. Against the order dismissing their revision they filed the claim petition which was decided in July 1992 and following directions were issued. "In view of the above discussion, we allow the applications partly, quash the orders passed by the Revisional Authority and direct that a fresh order may be passed in the Revision Petition of the applicants after taking into account observations contained in this order. Since applicants are out of job for over 11 years, the revisional authority shall pass the fresh orders on the Revision Petitions within 4 months of receipt of the copy of this order. The respondents are directed to allow the applicants to retain their quarters until 2 months after the afresh orders are passed in their Revision Petition, or until the normal period for which they are entitled under rules to retain the quarters after superannuation in case of those who have attained the age of superannuation, subject to payment of all arrears of rent at the rate applicable before their dismissal from service within 4 months of this order. Where the revisional authority holds or orders an enquiry under D.A.R., the applicants will be allowed to retain the quarters till final decision in the enquiry proceedings subject to the above conditions. Parties to bear their own costs." So far the appeals arising out of order passed by CAT, Chandigarh are concerned the employees working in that area also challenged the orders of disciplinary and appellate authority by way of writ petitions which were transferred to this Court. After the decision of the case in Tuhiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416) the employees filed Revision Petition and sought a direction that the concerned authorities be directed to decide the same. The CAT Chandigarh held that the ratio of Tulsiram Patel was of no assistance as the appeals had been rejected earlier and nothing was pending.

(3.) So far the political endeavour is considered it is narrated in an affidavit that in March 1990 the then Railway Minister made a statement on the floor of the House assuring that the cases of the dismissed employees would be reviewed and a decision would be taken for their reinstatement. It is further stated that in pursuance of the said statement of the Minister an order was passed on 20th June 1990 by the Board for review of cases and on 8th September 1991, 37 employees of South Central Railway were recommended for reinstatement. Later on the Chairman of the Railway Board submitted a note to the Railway Minister that instead of reinstating the employees they may be paid one time compensation. The affidavit states, that it was not agreed to by the Minister and a decision was taken by him to reinstate all the employees which was approved by the Cabinet. However since the decision was taken one day prior to the fall of the Ministry it was rescinded by the President. The affidavit states that the Railway Minister of the interim Government again made a statement in 1991 on the floor of the House that all the dismissed employees shall be reinstated. The succeeding Government, however, did not pass any order of reinstatement. But the learned counsel for respondents has produced a copy of the Governments decision made in 1993 to re-employ all such employees who had not approached the Court.