KISHORI HARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of order dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 26 of 2013 (R) wherein the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the said O.A. and for quashing of order dated 31.05.2012 passed by appellate authority (Rly) and also for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full back pay with consequential benefits.

(2.) THE material facts, bereft of unnecessary details in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was a 'Safaiwala' under Sr. Section Engineer (C & W) (I/C), Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, but, due to sudden mental troubles and serious medical illness he was taken to Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala, Kanke and he remained under treatment of a renowned psychiatrist from 15.10.1984 to 02.09.2001 and the factum of illness of the petitioner was communicated to the concerned authorities. However, the petitioner was finally declared fit on 02.09.2001. On being medically declared fit by the doctor, the petitioner submitted application before the Sr. Section Engineer (C & W) (I/C) dated 28.09.2001 for allowing him to resume duty. However, the Sr. Section Engineer (C & W) (I/C), Dhanbad did not pay any heed to the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the D.R.M. Office on 06.07.2004 to allow him to perform duty as 'Safaiwala'. It has been averred that thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the disciplinary authority and Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C & W) on 19.03.2007 praying therein to allow him to join duty and to revoke the unwarranted charge -sheet issued vide Memorandum dated 17.01.2007. The petitioner also filed representation dated 04.01.2008 before the disciplinary authority and Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C & W) against the findings of the enquiry officer dated 19.12.2007. Basing on the findings of the enquiry officer the petitioner was removed from services. Against order of removal, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Additional D.R.M. on 06.03.2008, which was partially allowed vide order dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure 6) and the petitioner was reinstated into services. In the order dated 31.05.2012 at Annexure 6, the appellate authority has been pleased to pass the following order:

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.