B VANI KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIAREP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 194 of 2003, dated: 8-7-2003.

(2.) The petitioner is the Applicant before the tribunal. She filed the application challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her by the 3rd respondent Chief Personal Officer, South Central Railway dated 28-10-2002 as being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and for consequential declaration that she is liable to be treated to have been promoted as Senior Personnel Officer from 31-1-2003, the date on which Mr. S. Subba Rayudu was promoted to the said post and for attendant benefits.

(3.) Certain facts leading to the filing of O.A. by the Applicant are narrated thus: Petitioner joined the Railways as Clerk in 1980 and she was being promoted to higher posts from time to time. Finally, she was promoted to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer with effect from 21-7-1994. It is the case of petitioner that she was deputed as Member to represent the Personnel branch to the Selection Committee of filling up 331/3% posts from Group-D employee by promotion. According to notification issued by the Railways, 18 posts were to be filled up and break up thereof was O.C. 14, S.C. 3, S.T.-1 respectively. The selection committee was headed by Mr. Manish Arora, District Controller of Stores, P. Rama Rao, Senior System Manager representing the reserved community and the petitioner. Interviews were conducted on 7-12-2001 and 33 candidates were interviewed, panel of 18 names were prepared based on the selection process. 7 candidates belonging to S.C. category and one candidate belonging to S.T. were also in the selected panel. The candidates cleared by the selection committee were promoted to the post of Junior Clerks by an Order dated 13-12-2001 by the competent authority. It appears that some enquiry was conducted by the vigilance department relating to the selection of the candidates for promotion to the post of clerks from Group-D category and the petitioner was also asked to furnish some information, which was supplied by her. Subsequently, it appears that the respondent issued Order on 20-6-2002 cancelling the panel prepared on the alleged grounds, that some irregularities were observed in the selection process. Aggrieved by the said cancellation, some of the employees filed a O.As. before the tribunal and the tribunal passed Orders on 20-6-2002 allowing O.A. cancelling the promotion Orders. Thereafter, the petitioner has been served with a major penalty charge memo under Rule 9 of the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 dated: 28-10-2002. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner committed irregularities in selecting the candidates for promotion for the post of clerks without following the principle of reservation thereby 2 O.C. candidates were denied the promotion. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet and tried to vindicate her action by stating that the selection process was in accordance with rules and she also stated that the charges as framed would not fall within the description of misconducts attracting the disciplinary provisions as at the most, it would be error of judgment, but not an act of delinquency. She also stated that the procedure followed was not only in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab ((1995) 2 SCC 745). As the department was proceeding further with the departmental enquiry, she filed O.A. before the tribunal for quashing the departmental proceedings. The learned tribunal after considering the matter and relying on the judgment to the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Upender Singh ((1994) 3 SCC 357) and Union of India v. Ashok Kocker(1995) 29 A.T.C. 145) dismissed the O.A. as premature. Against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.