JOYDEV KANDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application u/s. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the petitioner prays to enact the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner removing him from service passed by the Divisional Operating Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, contained in Annexure -D dated 20.6.1989.

(2.) Shortly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was served with a memo containing certain allegations against him that while he was functioning as TGM/DVM, he arranged admission of an outsider fraudulently in the Railway Hospitals at Kharagpur and at Garden Reach on 24.1.88, 28.1.88 and 8.3.88 by wilfully and fraudulently designating the said patient namely Anjali Lal as his own wife, though Anjali was the wife of Sri Sankar Deolal, a private truck driver at Tatanagar and the wife of the present petitioner was named as Smt. Renuka Bala Kandar and this act of the petitioner was with the intention of getting free medical treatment from the Railway Hospitals and thereby misconducted himself violating the provisions contained in Rules 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The disciplinary authority, while serving the charge - sheet, had called upon the delinquent official namely the present petitioner to submit a written statement and the petitioner submitted his written statement dated nil contained in Annexure -C. The disciplinary authority considered the contents of the written statement and vide Annexure -D, the disciplinary authority observed that since the petitioner had admitted the charge, a decision was taken by him to remove the petitioner from service with effect from the date of service of the order. Hence, this application has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) In their counter, the opposite parties contend that as per the rules, the disciplinary authority, having concluded that the charge was admitted, there was no further ground to hold a full fledged enquiry and the law having empowered the disciplinary authority to finally dispose of the matter on the basis of the admission of guilt by the delinquent officer, rightly the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service. It was further maintained by the opposite parties that the case being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.