MADHAVA RAO O Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner had been initially appointed as Substitute Token Porter by the Railway authorities and continued as such till the date of receipt of an order of removal from service dated September 12, 2001. The petitioner along with several other similarly placed employees thereafter moved the Ranchi Circuit Bench of the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders of dismissal and prayed that the same be quashed and they be reinstated with full back wages and all consequential benefits. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned his application was numbered as O.A. No. 160/2002. Nine matters, including that of the writ petitioner, were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated January 1, 2004. In the writ petitioner's case it was observed by the learned Tribunal that from the materials on record it would appear that the entire case involving the writ petitioner revolved round the fact that the only witness, who had given a statement that the service certificates submitted by the applicant were fake and forged, was not available for cross- examination during enquiry proceedings. The other ground taken by the petitioners was that they had been discriminated against, inasmuch as while they had been removed from service, others similarly-placed had been allowed to continue in service.

(2.) On the basis of the evidence as adduced, the learned Tribunal appears to have been of the view that the case as made out by the respondents was not without any element of doubt. The learned Tribunal observed that the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer gave rise to the suspicion as to whether the entire premises of the case had been built on inappropriate and incomplete facts. The learned Tribunal further observed that there was no evidence of the fact as to whether the respondents had made any attempt to find out the veracity or otherwise of the service certificates of the applicants, including the writ petitioner herein, for the period in question. It was observed that instead of depending entirely on the statement of the sole witness, the respondents could have made other efforts to verify the genuineness of the said certificates.

(3.) Keeping in view the said observations, the learned Tribunal remitted the matter to the respondents with a direction to see whether on application of their minds they could still make efforts to remove the grievances of the applicants that their cases had not been looked. into properly with regard to their claim of having served the PWI (Construction) Unit.