UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway and the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 22. 12. 2000 by which the order of punishment of removal from service passed against the respondent-applicant Mohammed Hanif has been set aside holding it as illegal, unjust and against the principle of natural justice.

(2.) THE facts of the case in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition is that the respondent- applicant-Mohammed Hanif while working on the post of driver in the Western Railway was charge sheeted for violation of Rule 2. 06 of G & S Rules, 1981, Rule 3 (1) (2) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and Para 1007 (5) (6) and (7) of Operating Manual Western Railway alleging disobedience of rules and orders for which an enquiry was conducted and pursuant to the enquiry an order imposing punishment of removal from service was passed against the respondent. THE principal charge against the petitioner disclosed that while he was posted as a driver for Goods Train (Mal Gadi Chalak) on 27. 7. 97 at Kota Division, a call was issued to him to drive a Train bearing No. 2627 Karnataka Express for which the arrival time was 18. 10 but he refused to respond to the call and informed that some other driver be arranged for driving the train. THEreafter another driver was engaged for running the train but as he was unfamiliar with the route, the train caused an accident at Faridabad. As per the charge sheet, the respondent was the only train driver with two years experience to drive diesel engines who was driving goods train from Ganganagar to Tuglakabad Division and was aware of the route. In emergency situation as per the instruction of the Railway Board Headquarter, the petitioner with permission of the competent authority was competent to drive Mail/express Train which he refused. As per his driving skill he was having a B- Gradation Card for driving Mail and Express Trains, but had refused to drive the Express Train on 27. 7. 97 which met with an accident on account of respondent's refusal to drive. Thus, he was alleged of the charge of disobedience to the rules and orders in this regard as refusal to drive the train was a serious misconduct.

(3.) IN course of hearing of this matter it finally transpired that the respondent had already superannuated on 31. 5. 2001 during pendency of this writ petition and therefore, the question of his reinstatement does not arise at all. Hence, it was considered inessential to enter into the question as to whether the respondent was granted opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend himself which could impress upon this Court to set aside the enquiry report on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.