RAJQNDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE BHULETAN PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1999 (Annexure-26), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. 17 of 1994 (Rajendra Prasad V/s. The Union of India & Others), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected, and the order of removal from the service passed by the respondent authority has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner claims to have been born on 12.6.1944. He had initially joined in the railways as a substitute on 14.12.1964, and was thereafter made a permanent Porter on 31.7.1977. In due course, he was promoted as Leverman grade II on 9.11.1982, and thereafter promoted to Leverman grade I on 12.4.1985. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Leverman at Tehta railway station. While he was on duty on 26.2.1991, two trains had collided causing loss to the railway property. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 4.3.1991 (Annexure-1). This was followed by a preliminary enquiry leading to initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, Station Master, the Guard, and the Engine Driver. The memo of charges dated 21/22.3.1991 (Annexure-3) was served on him. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.5.1991 (Annexure-17), whereby he found that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. This was followed by second show-cause notice dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure-18), alongwith copy of the enquiry report forwarded to the petitioner. He had shown cause by his communication dated 3.6.1991 (Annexure-19). On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplinary authority passed order dated 20.6.1991 (Annexure-20), whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner's departmental appeal was rejected leading to O.A. No. 174 of 1992. The Tribunal disposed of the same by order dated 26.7.1993 (Annexure-23), whereby the order of the learned appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remitted to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made therein. The matter was reconsidered by the learned appellate authority and once again dismissed the appeal on 12.11.1993 (Annexure-25). The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A.No.17 of 1994, which has been rejected by the impugned order leading to the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance that the learned appellate authority did not discharge his duties and functions as enjoined upon him in law and has rejected the appeal by a summary order. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V/s. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others, 2009 3 LLJ 624 (Paragraph nos. 8 to 10, 11 and 13). He lastly submits that the sentence is disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges and is also discriminatory in nature. He relies on the following reported judgments: