UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has directed this petition against the order dated 5th December,1998 of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, by which OA.No.1831/97 was allowed directing reinstatement in service of the respondent with all consequential benefits. The respondent No.1 was a casual labour on daily wages working under IOW/BLM. He claimed to have worked as such from 15/4/1978 upto 15/2/1981 rendering in all 383 days service. In 1987, a Notification was issued inviting applications for the post of substitute loco cleaner, the pre-condition of which was that the applicant should have been working prior to 4/10/1978 as casual labour. Respondent No.1 applied for the same and after the interview and getting the previous working of the applicant verified, he was appointed as substitute loco cleaner w.e.f. 2 9/11/1986. while he was working as substitute loco cleaner, he was served with a major penalty charge sheet dated 15/07/1991 alleging that with his connivance a forgery was committed in obtaining a certificate indicating his working period as a casual labour from 15/4/1978 to 15/2/1981. He was served with statement of charges and the statement of amputations on the basis of which charges were to be sustained. In short, the statement of amputations, on the basis of which charges were to be sustained, was that he managed to secure employment as substitute loco cleaner by showing that he had worked under IOU/BLM during the period 15/4/1978 to 15/2/1981. On re-verification of their original working, the signatures of IOW/BLM were found forged. The allegations were that with the connivance of respondent No.1 a forgery was committed showing the period of his working as casual labour prior to 4/10/1978 which was a pro-requisite for the post of substitute loco cleaner. A further imputation against him was that by doing so he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant and thus contravened Rule 3.1 (i) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer returned the finding that charges were not proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority, however, dis-agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and vide its orders dated 7/10/1994 imposed a punishment of removal from service on respondent No.1. An appeal against the said order and a revision petition filed thereafter by respondent No.1 were also rejected. Aggrieved by the said orders, respondent No.1 filed O.A. before the Tribunal, which resulted in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India has preferred the present petition.

(2.) Perusal of the impugned order and the material placed on record indicates that main ground taken by respondent No.1 was that he was not allowed to examine some witnesses during the enquiry proceedings. His prayer for supplying some documents was also not allowed. The Tribunal did not find the said grounds relevant as the Enquiry Officer had concluded in favour of the charged officer and had found the charges not proved against him. The Tribunal has in fact returned the finding that the Disciplinary Authority did not give cogent reasons for its dis-agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and finding the order of the Disciplinary Authority without any foundation, the order of removal from service of respondent was quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.G.D. Bhandari has vehemently contended that the Disciplinary Authority had acted arbitrarily without applying its mind. It is alleged that it failed to give cogent and valid reasons for its dis-agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and had not complied with the mandatory rules in this respect. The Disciplinary Authority gave a note of dis-agreement in the following words :