SHRI G RAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE delinquent being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, the Tribunal) dated 25th February, 2000 dismissing O. A. No. 854 of 1998 which was directed against the order of the respondent disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of removal from service as a disciplinary measure for the proven misconduct, has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india.

(2.) LET us first briefly refer to the background facts leading to the filing of the O. A. before the tribunal: the petitioner was a Station Master Grade II at the relevant point of time. He was transferred from Bangalore Cantonment to Belandur station, and as per the instructions issued by the transferring authority he had to report for the duty at the new station on 07. 03. 1994. The petitioner went to Belandur railway station on 05. 03. 1994 and perused the Station Working rules ('swr', for short ). As the petitioner found certain anomalies in SWRs, he sent a letter as per Annexure-A. 1 dated 05. 03. 1994 to the 4th respondent pointing out certain anomalies for rectification. After the petitioner reported for duty on 07. 03. 1994 he was allowed to be trained for two days. On 09. 03. 1994 the incharge Station Master sent a message as per Annexure-A. 2 to the effect that the petitioner who had completed SWR training had become spare and was awaiting clarification over SWR anomaly raised by him in the letter dated 05. 03. 1994. The 4th respondent in reply thereto instructed that the petitioner should take up independent duty with due declaration, that the delay in taking up block duty would be treated as absence and that the correction to SWR would be done after a study by T1/rules as per Annexure-A. 3. The Station master incharge then reported to the 4th respondent that the petitioner was willing to take up duty without declaration in view of the anomalies stated by him and that when he is physically present he could not be treated absent and his services could be utilised for other duties which did not involve declaration as per Annexure-A. 4. It is stated that after exchange of some messages, the 4th respondent issued a message as per Annexure-A. 5. It reads: "sri G. Rajan, SM/ii/blrr is not permitted to claim his attendance so long as he does not perform block duties at BLRR. Ensure by marking as absent in such cases". Notwithstanding the above message, the petitioner was not willing to give declaration as required under the relevant rules before assuming duties of the Station Master. When the matter stood thus, on 23. 04. 1994, the petitioner, however, gave the required declaration and assumed charge as Station Master. Of course, it is the case of the petitioner that he was coerced to give such declaration on 23. 04. 1994.

(3.) ON 22. 06. 1994, a Memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner wherein it was alleged that he disobeyed the lawful orders given by his superiors and refused to take up independent duties of Station Master thereby violating GR 2. 06 (a) and (b) by absenting himself unauthorisedly from 13. 03. 1994 to 23. 04. 1994 and that he failed to abide by the terms of employment, disobeyed Subsidiary Rules, special instructions and departmental rules by which he was governed, thereby violating the provisions of Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence denying the allegations. In the circumstance, the 6th respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner.