JEET NARAIN Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Jeet Narain by the Railway authorities. The first writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11.1997 passed in Original Application No. 461 of 1989. Under the said judgment the Tribunal has issued following directions: (a) Fresh departmental enquiry be conducted against the Jeet Narain, qua the charge of forged casual labour card being submitted by him. (b) Employee be reinstated pending enquiry. (c) A cost of Rs. 25,000/ - be paid by the employer concerned.

(2.) THE Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition suspended the payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - vide order dated 26.2.1998 however it was directed that the other two directions issued by the Tribunal be carried out. The Union of India, therefore after reinstating the petitioner proceeded with the departmental enquiry. After the enquiry proceedings were completed, an order was passed by the competent authority removing the petitioner from service dated 23.3.2000. It was recorded that the petitioner was guilty of filing a forged casual labour card and, therefore, not entitled to be continued in service.

(3.) WE have heard Shri S.K. Pandey on behalf of the employee, Shri Jeet Narain and Shri S.K. Rai and Shri Shitla Sahai on behalf of Union of India in both the writ petition. On behalf of the petitioner it has again been contended before us that the proceedings were vitiated for non -compliance of principles of natural justice and various facts including the correspondence entered into between the employee and the railway authorities have been referred to. Lastly it was contended, before us that the Tribunal has misread the appellate order while recording the finding that the order under challenge contained sufficient reasons. On behalf of Union of India/Railways the contentions so raised has been disputed and with regards to the last plea that the appellate order does not contain any reason, attempt was made to take the Court through the appellate order so as to support the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal