R VISWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B. Adi Narayana Rao, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.V. Rajeev Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. These applications illustrate another bend in a meandering course of litigation. The petitioner (respondent in W.P. No. 19978 of 2005) who was serving as an Assistant Catering Inspector Grade-II was imposed the revised penalty of reversion by one grade i.e., to the grade of Catering Manager in the scale of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-(RP) and his pay fixed at the minimum of the grade at Rs. 4,000/- per month, for three years with cumulative effect, pursuant to a process of disciplinary proceeding. This order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by way of O.A. No. 145 of 2004. The O.A. was allowed by the order dated 26.04.2005 on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority; that the entire disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated on account of the inherent lack of jurisdiction; and consequently, the disciplinary proceedings are void in to. The Tribunal quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings and observed that the respondents herein (the respondents in the O.A.) had no option but to restore the applicant to his original post by paying him all the consequent benefits, within the time stipulated in the order of the Tribunal. This O.A. was filed without impleading either the Union of India or the South Central Railway, the latter of which was the employer. The employee merely impleaded the Additional Divisional Railway Manager (Operations), Secunderabad Division, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Secunderabad Division and the Senior Commercial Manager (Catering), Secunderabad.

(2.) These respondents, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal preferred Writ Petition No. 19978 of 2005. A learned Division Bench of this Court, on 12.07.2007 allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the employee had earlier filed a series of applications before the Tribunal and also approached this Court in respect of earlier stages in the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to the same alleged misconduct. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the employee, which stood invalidated by the order of the Tribunal, stood effaced and the penalty became operative.

(3.) Seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2007 in W.P. No. 19978 of 2005, the Rev. W.P.M.P. is filed.