NARASINGH MACHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the applicant in OA No. 1094 of 2000 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, aggrieved by order dated 20.2.2002. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein, he has challenged the order of removal dated 8.2.1999, which was confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 23.8.1999 and further confirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 14.3.2001.

(2.) The petitioner/applicant was appointed as Substitute Bungalow Peon in the railway service on 20.7.1995 and was granted temporary status as per the order dated 30.10.1996. At the time of appointment, he had given his original transfer certificate issued by the school authorities at Gujarat for verification, and as per the figures mentioned by the applicant, the recording Clerk had entered the date of birth of petitioner as 5.12.1966. After his appointment, when it came to light that he misguided the concerned Clerk by giving wrong date of birth so as to come within the zone of consideration having regard to the age restrictions, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him as per the provisions under the Railway Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1968. In the disciplinary proceedings, the following charge was framed against the petitioner:

(3.) In the disciplinary proceedings, though the petitioner/applicant had admitted the charge, subsequently, on the ground that he was forced to admit the charge, he approached the Tribunal questioning the final orders of removal passed in the disciplinary proceedings. The order of removal was challenged by way of appeal and revision, but he was unsuccessful, as such, ultimately, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal, by impugned order, dismissed the O.A., by recording a finding that the disciplinary authority had passed the speaking order and even a perusal of records does not disclose any irregularity or infirmity in the procedure followed in the disciplinary proceedings.