MOOL CHAND YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was working as a Head Booking Clerk at Ajmer in the year 1985. He was subjected to a Disciplinary Enquiry under Rule 18 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1968) on the charges for issue of Printed Card Tickets instead of showing the tickets in the concessional forms o 4 physically handicapped persons and their companions. The Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved and, on that basis, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 1.12.1988 imposing penalty of removal from service against him. Against this order dated 1.2.1988, he preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority passed order dated 26.5.1989 imposing the penalty of reducing him to the start of next lower grade for a period of 5 years with future effect i.e. postponing the future increments and affecting his seniority and the intervening period was treated as "not spent on duty". The Chief Commercial Superintendent issued a notice suo -motu to the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1968 calling upon him to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed against him for the reasons, which were enclosed with this very notice in Annexure -A. The petitioner herein filed a reply to the aforesaid notice and thereafter, the Chief Commercial Superintendent i.e. the Revisional Authority exercising powers under the Discipline and Appeal Rules imposed penalty of removal from service as had been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 15.2.1990. Against this order dated 15.2.1990 the petitioner preferred original Application No. 125/90 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 5.1.1994 decided the original application in the following terms and the operative part thereof (10) is reproduced hereunder:

(2.) AS the liberty was granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal for consideration of representation, the Chief Commercial Manager decided the petitioner's representation referred to as Annex. A/9 in the operative part of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order as above. By its order dated 29.6.1994 dealing with the grounds as were raised by the petitioner, the Chief Commercial Manager decided that the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect be imposed against the petitioner. In view of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 5.1.1994, it has been stated before us that the petitioner was taken back in service and after the order dated 29.6.1994 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager, he was again removed from service. The petitioner then approached the General Manager, against this order dated 29.6.1994 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager but General Manager also rejected the representation and, thereafter, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur through Original Application No. 336/96. This O.A. No. 336/96, in the second round of litigation, was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 5.10.2000 and the application was dismissed.

(3.) IN response to the notice, as aforesaid, issued by the Court, the respondents filed reply on 5.5.2001 to which a rejoinder dated 6.6.2001 was also filed by the petitioner on 11.6.2001.