UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, Union of India, have challenged the Order dated 4th April 2003 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original application No. 159 of 1993. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application by directing that terminal benefits, like gratuity, family pension, cash equivalent of earned leave, provident fund, arrears of salary, etc. be paid over to the legal heirs of Ramnayan Verma who was employed with the Central Railway. Ramnayan Verma (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") expired on 20th November 1992.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioners that Ramnayan verma, who was working as a Steam Crane Driver in the central Railway Workshop at Parel, had assaulted the senior Shop Superintendent causing serious injuries to him. The employee was placed under suspension on 11th february 1992. The fact finding committee appointed by the Railways submitted its report on 14th February 1992. Several workers had admitted that the employee had assaulted the Senior Shop Superintendent. However, the petitioners thought it fit to dispense with the enquiry as it was felt that no witnesses would be willing to depose at a departmental enquiry if instituted against the employee. Taking recourse to Rule 14 (ii) of the railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules) , the Petitioners removed the employee from service with immediate effect. The employee having expired on 20th November 1992, his heirs and legal representatives filed an Original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, mumbai Bench, challenged the order of punishment of removal from service as it was based without holding an enquiry against the employee. Consequential reliefs were also sought in the Original Application, namely, payment of legal dues. This Application was filed on 26th February 1993. The Petitioners contested the original Application filed by the legal heirs of the employee. The question as to whether an Original application filed by the legal heirs is maintainable was referred to the Full Bench of the Tribunal which opined that such an Application was not maintainable. Writ petition No. 4856 of 1998 was filed before this Court by the Respondents. It appears that on 20th January 2003, a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal resolved the issue and held an action can be maintained by the legal heirs of a deceased employee. Accordingly, an order remanding the matter to the Tribunal was passed. The Tribunal on 4th April 2003 has passed the impugned judgment.

(3.) The Tribunal has rejected the plea taken by the petitioners that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided under the Rules. The Tribunal was of the view that there was no reason for dispensation of the enquiry against the employee and, therefore, has set aside the order of removal from service of the employee. As a consequence, the Tribunal directed that the employee should be treated to have continued in service from the date of his removal till the date of his death on 20th November 1992. A further direction was issued regarding payment of full salary and allowances for this period as well as for payment of terminal benefits and family pension.