UNION OF INDIA Vs. N M DHOBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Ms. Meghaben Jani for the petitioner-Union of India and Mr. K. K. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent employee Shri N. M. Dhobi.

(2.) In these two petitions, both the respective parties have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated August 20, 1999 in O.A. No. 305 of 1999, therefore, both the petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts of the present case are as under :

(3.) Applicant employee was recruited in the establishment of the respondents in the year 1957 as a Signaller in reserved quota of S.C. Railway Department promoted him in December, 1974 to the post of A.S.M. against quota for reserved candidates. Applicant employee refused promotion on ground that he was recruited against the general category and not against reserved category. Then, applicant employee was served with a charge-sheet for getting advantage in original recruitment in reserved quota by showing himself as S.C. candidate. Applicant employee denied the charges. Then, departmental inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was submitted to Disciplinary Authority. Then, he was removed from service by order dated December 3, 1976. Applicant-employee preferred an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, Baroda which was rejected. Then, applicant-employee applied for review to reviewing authority namely D.S.P. D.R.C. to review the order of punishment. The reviewing authority reappointed him in service. Then, representation was made to General Manager, Western Railways to restore him in the original status along with all consequential benefits. General Manager refused to accept his prayer. Then, one more representation was made to the General Manager and also to the Railway Board. Railway Board disposed of break in service was taken up by Union which was also not accepted. Consequently, the applicant employee lost past service of 18 years from December 31, 1958 to December 31, 1976. He was treated as a fresh entrant from April 18, 1979 when he was reappointed. Due to loss of 18 years service, the applicant employee has lost chances of promotion and also suffered loss of retirement benefits. On the basis of above facts, the applicant-employee filed O.A. No. 305 of 1991 with a prayer to quash the order dated 12th April, 1990 communicated to the Union vide letter dated April 17, 1990 and to treat the service of the applicant-employee continuous with all consequential benefits of past service.