D.J. PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third round of litigation before this Tribunal by the applicant who was an Assistant Personnel Officer, removed from service by the Western Railway. His first application before this Tribunal was challenging the order of the Railway Board imposing the penalty of removal from service and the order of the President rejecting his appeal. That matter was adjudicated by this Tribunal in OA/508/2006 vide its order dated 9.7.2008. This Tribunal had quashed and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to the same authority to examine the matter as directed in the said order. As the Appellate Authority did not observe the time limit prescribed by this Tribunal (three months) for completing the exercise, the applicant moved this Tribunal with a Contempt Petition. As per the direction in the order dated 2.7.2009 in the CP, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2009. In the present O.A., the applicant is challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority. Before going into the grounds stated in this OA, it is worthwhile to state the facts in brief. The applicant while working as a Assistant Personnel Officer [APO (IR)/CCG/W. Rly], was alleged to have committed gross misconduct, displayed lack of integrity and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Railway servant infringing Rule 3.1 (i) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. It is alleged that he had concealed the fact regarding his daughter's candidature in the examination for NTPC conducted by RRB/Mumbai held on 23.6.1996 in Centre No. 22, New English High School, M.G. Marg, Vasai and got himself nominated as the Centre in -charge there. He is alleged to have extended undue favour to his daughter in the written examination by misusing his official position, with the assistance of his subordinate staff. A retired Chief Engineer of the Railway was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 4.11.2003 held the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager, Western Railway after considering the Inquiry Officer's report and the applicant's representation dated 7.8.2004 against the inquiry report and the case records, proposed the penalty of "removal" of the applicant. Since the proposed penalty was not within the General Manager's competence, the case was forwarded to the Railway Board. The Railway Board imposed the penalty of removal from service vide its order dated 8.4.2005. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 31.5.2005 to the President. The President in consultation with the UPSC rejected his appeal vide order dated 8.9.2006. The applicant filed OA/508/2006 on 28.11.2006 before this Tribunal challenging the said order. As stated earlier, this Tribunal by its order dated 9.7.2008, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority with the following observations and directions:

(2.) THE grounds alleged in this OA are that the orders of the respondents suffer lack of application of mind on the part of the respondents and that they have failed to consider the UPSC's advice dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure A -4, subsequent to this Tribunal's order in OA/508/2006). The respondents while passing the Annexure A -2 order have miserably failed to consider/appreciate the direction of this Tribunal OA/508/2006. The respondents passed Annexure A -2 order in a mechanical manner. The applicant, in response to this Tribunal's order, had applied for a personal hearing and at the time of personal hearing of the applicant by the Minister of State Railways, the applicant had submitted Annexure A -5 written arguments but the respondents have not taken into consideration of the said written representation or the observations made by this Tribunal in OA/508/2006. The applicant states that in order to adjudicate his delinquent act, this Tribunal requires to peruse the documents mentioned in para 5(G) of the OA. The quantum of punishment awarded by the respondents is quite harsh without considering the unblemished service records of the applicant. It is also contended by the applicant that the officer who passed Annexure A -2 order is not the officer who had given the personal hearing.

(3.) THE respondents filed MA/402/2010 for deletion of the name of the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission on the ground that the inclusion of that respondent in the party array was vitiated by mis -joinder of the parties. In the written reply, the respondents contend that as directed by this Tribunal, after given a personal hearing to the applicant by the Minister of State for Railways [MOSR(V)] and after following required and prescribed procedure, the Appellate Authority has passed the Annexure A -2, which is a reasoned and speaking order, upholding the penalty of removal of the applicant. Due consideration was given to the written brief dated 12.11.2008 submitted by the applicant by the Minister of State during personal hearing and the case was referred to the UPSC on 24.11.2008 for advice and the observations made this Tribunal in OA/508/2006. According to the respondents copy of the letter dated 28.7.2008 demanded for by the applicant is nothing but a forwarding letter. Since the decision in Ramchandra's case sought is a reported decision, the applicant can procure it from any of the law reports. As the applicant has no sufficient grounds for challenging Annexure A -2 order which was passed by the Competent Authority after considering the applicant's own written brief and after consultation with the UPSC, the respondents pray for dismissing the OA with costs.