SURENDRA NATH KAIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as a 'points man' in Railways and posted at Santipur Station on February 14, 1981. He worked on various duty shifts having variable time schedule. He was promoted as 'lever man' on August 6, 1981. He started residing at the Railway Quarter allotted to him and stayed there from 5th July, 1983 to 9th March, 1988. In 1984 he was injured while on duty. He was subsequently promoted as 'Switchman' on November 14, 1986 and as a 'Goods Guard' on February 13, 1997. In 1999 he was proceeded with departmentally on a charge of gross misconduct. It had come to the knowledge of the Railways while working for the Railways, he also served as an 'Assistant Teacher' at Kantadanga North Janata Arya Vidyalaya (Junior High School), a school near to his residence. However, his place of posting was 58 km. away as contended by Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner. Railway Authority conducted a preliminary enquiry to find out the veracity of the complaint. After being satisfied, the Railway proceeded against him departmentally after affording him adequate opportunity to defend himself in the said proceeding. The Headmaster, Secretary and three teachers of the said school deposed before the Enquiry Officer. According to them, the petitioner worked as a 'teacher' in the concerned school for the period 1981-86. He resigned in 1986. According to the Enquiry Officer, possibly he could manage two employments because of his variable time schedule to work as a 'points man' and/or 'lever man'. The enquiry further revealed that up to 1986 he enjoyed the salary from both the organisations. 1986 onwards up till the period 1994 salary was withdrawn to the extent of Rs. 2.13 lakhs from the State exchequer surreptitiously, although according to the teachers during the said period the petitioner did not work. It is not clear whether he was also a part of the conspiracy to withdraw the said amount from the State exchequer. Significant to note, when the irregularities surfaced someone deposited the said amount in the State exchequer. It is also not clear whether the petitioner had any hand in it. Fact remains, his service as a 'teacher' during the period 1981-86 was proved to the hilt through the evidence of the Headmaster, Secretary and teachers of the said School. The finding of the Enquiry Officer appearing at page '27' of the petition is quoted below:

(2.) The Enquiry Officer held him guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed him from service. On July 18, 2003, he made an appeal against the order of dismissal dated July, 7, 2003, but in vein.

(3.) Being aggrieved he approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had followed the procedures of giving opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself. The Tribunal was satisfied with the procedure followed by the Authorities and did not find any mala fide. The Tribunal also observed that the allegation that the petitioner was targeted and victimised, was not clear. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding it merit less. Hence, this application.