UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CW.No.-375/99 and Cw.-No.419/99 directed against two separate orders dated 4/12/1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) by which the orders of the Disciplinary Authority followed by the order of the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority imposing a penalty of removal from service of Suresh and Chatra Pal were set aside in,two writ petitions.

(2.) Respondent No.1 was a casual labour working under I.O.W./BALMAU, Moradabad Division of Indian Railways (in short as IOW/BLM) Suresh claimed to be engaged as such from 1/04/1978 upto 2 8/02/1982. whereas Chafcra Pal claimed to be engaged as such from 4/10/1977 to 30/03/1982. The Divisional Railway Manager, respondent No.2 invited 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. Respondent No.1 in both the cases applied and after the interview and after getting the previous working of the applicants and verified by deputing a Senior Inspector, respondent No.1 Suresh was appointed as substitute Loco Cleaner vide order dated 2 6/07/1988 whereas Chatra Pal was appointed as such vide order dated 14/07/1988. while they were working as substitute Loco Cleaner, they were served with separate charge sheets for imposition of a major penalty. Both of them were placed'under suspension vide separate orders. They were served with statement of articles of charge and the statement of imputation, on the basis of which the charges were to be sustained. In short, the statement of imputations, on the basis of which charges were to be sustained was that'they managed to secure employment as substitute Loco Cleaner LF/LRJ by showing that they had worked under lOw/BLM during the period 1/04/1978 to 28/02/1982 in case of Suresh and from 4/10/1977 to 30/03/1982 in case of Chatra Pal, while it was not supported by any valid document. On re-verification of their original working, the signatures of lOw/BLM 'were found forged. The allegations were that with the connivance of respondent No.1, a forgery was committed showing the period of their working as casual labour prior to 4/10/1978 which was a pre-requisite for the post oF substitute Loco Cleaner. .The further imputation against them was that by doing so they failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant and thus contravened rule No.3',1 (i) and (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules,1966. The Enquiry was conducted and a penalty of removal from service was imposed. The Appellate and Reviewing Authority confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved by the same, Suresh filed OA.No.193/96 and Chatra Pal filed OA .No .1327/96. By two separate orders dated 4fch December ,1998, both the OAs were allowed quashing the orders of punishment of removal from service; and directing the petitioner herein to reinstate them in service forthwith with all consequential benefits and to pay to them the entire back wages for the period they were kept out of service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. The petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred the present writ petitions. In both the writ petitions, operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal was stayed by this Court.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the material placed on record indicates that the main ground taken before the Tribunal by respondent No.1 was that the delinquent was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry as some of the documents, required by him, were not made available and also the witnesses/to be examined by him in defence were not allowed to be examined. The respondent delinquent desired to be supplied documents like verification form in original, pay vouchers for the period he worked as casual labour, casual labour attendance register etc. By these documents, the delinquent wanted to disprove the allegations that he did not work as casual labour prior to 4/10/1978. The Enquiry Officer had declined to supply most of these documents ,on various grounds like they were with the Vigilance Department or were weeded out. The examination of'' the witnesses in defence was declined on the ground that solitary witness Shri S.P.Jutla had proved the department's case and separate departmental proceeding were initiated against the witnesses and their testimony would not be relevant for the proceedings. The contention of the delinquent found Favour with the Tribunal to hold that the delinquent was entitled to reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner which he could not do as the relevant documents to defend his case were not made available to him and also the witnesses by whose examination he could have disproved the charges against him, were not allowed to be examined.