UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHUTOSH DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India represented by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and five other officers of the Eastern Railway are the petitioners in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. They call in question the correctness of a judgment and order dated 17th June, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereafter the 'tribunal') on O.A. 707 of 2005, being an original application at the instance of the first respondent before us.

(2.) By the impugned judgment, the tribunal held that disciplinary proceeding initiated against the first respondent was not conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and also that the proceeding having been initiated eight years after the first respondent's entry in railway service, the same was liable to interdiction. Accordingly, the order of the disciplinary authority by which the first respondent was removed from service and the appellate order upholding such order of the disciplinary authority, were set aside and the first respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits within a period of three months from date of receipt of the order. The original application, accordingly, stood allowed.

(3.) The charge against the respondent was that he had joined service in the railway in terms of a fake appointment order. We have found from the impugned judgment of the tribunal that initially the enquiry officer returned a finding that the first respondent was not guilty. The disciplinary authority disagreed with such finding and directed fresh enquiry. In the fresh enquiry that followed, the enquiry officer held the charge levelled against the first respondent to be proved. The disciplinary authority thereafter furnished the report of enquiry to the first respondent seeking his comments. Upon consideration of such comments, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the final order removing him from service. The tribunal found the enquiry not to be in consonance with directions passed by it earlier while disposing of O.A. 1277 of 2003.