UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAIK MAHABOOB SAHAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India Railways had questioned the order made in O.A.No.387 of 2002, dated 04.10.2002, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for the purpose of convenience).

(2.) The 1st respondent in the W.P.No.24404 of 2002 the applicant in O.A. Shaik Mahaboob Sahab, had also questioned the said order by filing W.P.No.24979 of 2002. In view of the same, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as arrayed in the O.A.

(3.) The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.24979 of 2002 applicant, while he was working as Dispatch Clerk in the office of Divisional Operating Superintendent, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, a disciplinary action was initiated against him by issuing a charge Memo No.CON.227/1/80/2, dated 16.12.1980. A punishment of reduction in rank to the post of peon for a period of four years was imposed on him on 19.11.1982. On an appeal, the punishment was enhanced to removal from service on 17.10.1983. Questioning the same, the applicant filed W.P.No.11427 of 1983, which was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as S.L.P.No.3234 of 1990 and the same was allowed and the Railways has taken the matter to the Supreme Court and the Honble Supreme Court on 30.11.1990, remanded the matter for reconsideration on merits. Subsequent to that, Tribunal by its orders, dated 01.05.1991, in T.A.No.649 of 1986, set aside the punishment imposed on the applicant, but permitted Railways-respondents to continue the disciplinary enquiry in terms of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, either treating the applicant as in-service or deemed to be under suspension from the date of order of removal. The Tribunal also observed that depending upon the order passed, the applicant would be entitled to the arrears of pay or would be entitled to allowance from the date of removal from service to the end of enquiry. It is stated that railways by order, dated 12.12.1991, kept the applicant under deemed suspension from 17.10.1983, the date of removal to 31.05.1990, the date of applicant attaining the age of superannuation. It is also ordered to pay provisional pension from 01.06.1990. However, orders to conduct the enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer has been made on 25.09.1995. It is further stated that the railways had been protracting without conducting the enquiry and the applicant filed O.A.No.1031 of 1998 on the file of the Tribunal for quashing the charge Memo, dated 16.12.2000, and the Tribunal vide order, dated 24.11.1998, partly allowed the said O.A., directing respondents-railways to pay DCRG to the applicant within two weeks from the date of the order and dispose of the enquiry not later than 31.01.1999. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the railways filed W.P.No.3506 of 1999 and the applicant also filed W.P.No.5588 of 2000 against the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1031 of 1998, dated 24.11.1998, in not quashing the Charge Memo. By a common order, dated 17.10.2001, in W.P.No.3506, 13500 of 1999 and W.P.No.5588 of 2000, the W.P.No.3506 of 1999 filed by the railway administration was dismissed by observing that even after the factual statement made by the learned standing Counsel for the railways was accepted to be true, it could hardly be a justifiable ground for the railway administration to sleep over the matter and not to pass a final order and directed the respondent-disciplinary authority to pass appropriate final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on or before 31.12.2001 as a last chance. With the said observation, the W.P.No.5588 of 2000 was disposed of.