Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Rakesh Prasad Meena vs M/O Railways on 9 December, 2025
1
(Reserved on 10.11.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur)
Jabalpur, this the 09th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 485 of 2020
Rakesh Prasad Meena, S/o Shri Manga Lal Meena, Aged about
37 years, Substitute Telephone Attendant and Dak Khalasi
(TADK) under Shri Navneet Raj, Dy. CSO, South Eastern
Central Railway, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495004,
resident of village - Reta, Post - Dubbi, Tehsil - Sikai, District -
Dausa (Rajasthan) - 303304. ....Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri B.P. Rao
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through General Manager, South East Central
Railway, SECR Zonal Headquarters, Bilaspur, District -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495004.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Personnel Department, 1st Floor,
South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur
District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)- 495004.
3. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway,
District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)- 495004.
4. Shri Navneet Raj, Deputy CSO, South East Central Railway
Headquarters, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G) - 495004.
......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Siddharth Rathod
ANAND
Page 1 of 22
2025.12.09
PRAKASH
16:41:41+05'30'
DUBEY
2
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
In the present original application, the applicant was appointed as Substitute Telephone Attendant-cum-Dak Khalasi (in short TADK) vide order dated 21.09.2018 (Annexure A-3). He was attached to Sr. D.S.O/SECR/NGP (respondent no. 4) vide order dated 21.09.2018 . Subsequently, on completion of continuous four months service as Substitute TADK, vide order dated 15.05.2019 he was granted temporary status w.e.f. 19.01.2019 in terms of para 4 of Establishment Rule No. 250/2010 (Annexure A-5). Thereafter, on transfer of the officer to whom the applicant was attached, the applicant also requested for his transfer under the said officer. Consequently, the applicant was transferred vide order dated 27.05.2019 and reported respondent no. 4 at Bilaspur where his services were terminated vide order dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure A-
13) by the Senior Personal Officer, SECR due to unsatisfactory services in accordance with para (9) of Rule 250/2010. The applicant preferred representation dated 11.08.2020 to the General Manager, SECR, Bilaspur (Annexure A-14) but having received no response, he has filed the present original application for setting ANAND Page 2 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 3 aside the order dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure A-13) and for a direction to the respondents to treat the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.
2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit in which it has been mentioned that the applicant was initially engaged on the post of TADK/Bungalow Peon vide order 21.09.2018 and in terms of para 1515 of IREM Vol. I, he was granted temporary status vide order dated 15.05.2019. Later on, due to transfer of the officer to whom the applicant was attached, he was also transferred vide order dated 11.04.201. The respondents contended that for unsatisfactory service, a warning letter dated 06.04.2020 was issued to the applicant by the officer to whom he was attached but he refused to acknowledge the same and also he was reported for long absence from 26.03.2020 to 10.06.2020. Thereafter, in pursuance of letter dated 10.06.2020 of the Officer, to whom the applicant was attached, for termination of his services owing to unsatisfactory, the services of the applicant were terminated vide order dated 13.07.2020 in terms of para 9 of Estt. Rule No. 250/2010.
4. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder. ANAND Page 3 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 4 5 We have heard Shri B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned termination order dated 13.07.2020 is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the applicant, who was granted temporary status, had thereby acquired certain rights and protections available to a temporary employee under law. Consequently, his services could not have been dispensed with except by following due process of law, i.e., by holding a regular departmental enquiry in accordance with the applicable rules and principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned order has been passed mechanically, without application of mind and in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that the applicant was absent from duty, the respondents were duty-bound to follow the due procedure prescribed for disciplinary action. Since the applicant had already been conferred temporary status, he could not have been removed from service summarily or without framing charges and conducting an enquiry. The law is well settled that ANAND Page 4 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 5 when the foundation of an order is misconduct, the order cannot be treated as one of simple termination but is to be construed as punitive in nature, requiring a regular enquiry. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure A-13) may be quashed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and arrears of pay. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws:-
(i) Lakhi Ram Vs. Union of India and others reported in LAWS (DLH) 2007 10 38.
(ii) Baijnath Mandal Vs. UOI reported on LAWS (DLH) 2014 12 212.
(iii) Union of India and other Vs. Basant Lal reported on LAWS (SC) 1992 2 74.
(iv) Union of India through General Manager, Metro Railway Vs. Saroj Kumar Rai reported in LAWS (PAT) 2010 7 122.
(v) Gulshan Sharma Vs. Union of India and others decided on 27.8.2019 in OA No. 649/2016 by CAT Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Original Application and submitted that the impugned termination order dated 13.07.2020 has been passed in accordance with the ANAND Page 5 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 6 provisions contained in para (9) of Establishment Rule 250/2010 by paying wages for one month in lieu of one month notice in terms of para 301 of IREC Vol. I. It is contended that the applicant was initially appointed as Telephone Attendant-cum-Dak Courier (TADK)/Bungalow Peon purely on temporary and contractual basis, and his engagement was governed by the terms and conditions applicable to TADK appointments. It is submitted that though the applicant was granted temporary status, such status did not confer upon him any right to permanent employment. His services were still liable to be terminated in case of unsatisfactory performance or continued absence from duty, as clearly stipulated under the TADK policy and the terms of his engagement. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant remained continuously absent from duty from 26.03.2020 to 10.06.2020, without any intimation or sanctioned leave. Despite repeated warnings issued by the competent authority, he failed to report for duty. Therefore, the order of termination is a termination simplicitor based on prolonged absence as well as unsatisfactory service and not a punitive order passed on any charge of misconduct. Hence, there was no requirement of holding a regular departmental enquiry. ANAND Page 6 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 7
8. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the principles of natural justice have not been violated in the present case, as the applicant was duly cautioned through warning letter and was afforded sufficient opportunity to resume his duties but he refused to acknowledge the warning letter. The impugned order is thus administrative in nature and passed in the interest of discipline and efficiency of service. It is further submitted that the applicant's reliance on the grant of temporary status is misplaced. Temporary status only entitles the employee to certain benefits like leave and medical facilities but does not provide the same protection as that available to a regular or permanent employee. The applicant's appointment being temporary, his services could lawfully be terminated without resorting to a full-fledged departmental enquiry. The learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the impugned order is legal, valid, and sustainable, having been passed in accordance with the relevant provisions. There is no procedural irregularity, illegality, or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. Accordingly, Original Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings of learned counsel for the parties and the submissions advanced by them. ANAND Page 7 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 8
9. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant:-
(i) In the case of Lakhi Ram (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in para 8, which reads as under:-
"8. It is not in dispute that upon the grant of temporary status the petitioner acquired the right of being dealt with under the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Railways. Therefore, if it is held that the order of termination is stigmatic and therefore punitive, and not one of termination simplicitor, it would follow that the order of termination is bad since, admittedly, no departmental enquiry has preceded the passing of the said order of termination. It would also be in violation of the principles of natural justice".
(ii) In the case of Baijnath Mandal (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in para 17, which reads as under:-
"17. In the present case, the termination was due to alleged misbehaviour of the Petitioner, and hence, is stigmatic and punitive. Such termination, without holding a departmental enquiry, is clearly impermissible. The Respondents should have conducted a departmental enquiry before termination of the services, thereby providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to meet the accusations of his misbehaviour. The procedure as contained in the Rules of 1968 was required to be followed. Instead, the Respondents resorted to a short cut method by issuance of a stigmatic termination order dated 30.04.2002 and terminating his services. Since there was no departmental enquiry conducted before the termination, in accordance to the procedure prescribed in Rules of 1968, the termination order is against the principles of natural justice and hereby set aside".
ANAND Page 8 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 9
(iii) In the case of Basant Lal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"5. Thus, in the circumstances mentioned above, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal so as to call for any interference. The Railways were directed by the Tribunal to comply with the directions within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order of the Tribunal dated 16.3.1990. Thereafter the workers had moved a Contempt application before this Court and on 12.3.1991, this Court had directed the Union of India to give employment to all the respondents (workers) within two months and to pay them the salary equal to temporary status employee of the Railways at the initial stage of the pay. During the proceedings for Contempt of Court it was brought to our notice that the Railways had given employment to 35 workers initially and for the remaining 70 workers it was stated on 6.1.1992 that they have also been employed. In view of such statement made on behalf of the Union of India we did not consider it necessary to pursue the Contempt Petition any longer and the same was accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances mentioned above, we direct that all the 105 workers would be entitled to the salary equal to a temporary status employee of the Railway at the initial stage of the pay from 12.5.1991 when two months expired in accordance with our order dated 12.3.1991. It has been brought to our notice on behalf of the workers that they have been uprooted from their original place and even now they are being given daily wages at the rate of Rs. 19.10 paise and not being given the wages equal to a temporary status employee of the Railway at the initial stage of pay. We, therefore, direct the Railway Authorities to pay the back wages to all the employees from 12.5.1991 equal to a temporary status employee allowed at the initial stage of pay within two months from today after adjusting any amount already received by them. The Railway- Authorities shall accord the status of temporary employee to all the 105 workers. The workers shall also be entitled to one set of costs from the petitioner, Union of India. We dispose of the appeal in the manner indicated above".
(iv) In para 11 of Saroj Kumar Rai (supra) case, Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
ANAND Page 9 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 10 "11. However, another issue remains to be noticed. In Paragraph-31 the learned Tribunal has held that the termination was on the basis of alleged misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and complaints about his work. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the order of termination dated 25.1.2006 contained in Annexure-5 to this writ petition. The same clearly shows that it is an order of termination simplicitor without raising any allegations either of unauthorized absence or of misconduct.
Simply because the factual background was revealed by the petitioners to explain why they took a view that the employee had not completed 120 days of continuous service and further that the certificate of the Controlling Officer was to the effect that the service was unsatisfactory, it cannot be held that the termination order was based upon allegations of misconduct".
(v) In para 15 of Gulshan Sharma (supra) case, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has held as under:-
"15. Applying the ratio of the above judgment to the present case, it is seen that although the impugned termination order is issued in terms of the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the letter dated 5.7.2016 of the respondent No. 4 (A/5 series) was based on the allegation of unauthorized absence of the applicant from 9.5.2016. It was therefore, based on the allegation of unauthorized absence although it was not mentioned as such in the order dated 2.8.2016. Hence, the impugned termination order is founded on the allegation of unauthorized absence. In addition, as discussed earlier, there were serious allegations of the applicant against the respondent no. 4 Which were not examined properly by the respondents. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in view of the background to the case as discussed above, the impugned order dated 2.8.2016 (A/5 series) is punitive, although it has been worded as a simple termination order and it has been issued without following the procedure as applicable for the disciplinary proceedings to prove the allegations of unauthorized absence against the applicant. The issue at (ii) of para 9 is answered accordingly".
ANAND Page 10 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 11
10. The learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 730/2014 - Ajit Kumar Pradhan Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by Allahabad Bench in OA No. 918/2019 - Satish Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
11. In the OA No. 918/2019 (Supra), the applicant, who was appointed as TADK, was also granted temporary status and his service were terminated on account of unsatisfactory service and long absent from duty. The issue whether the termination was simplicitor or was stigmatic being punitive in nature was also considered and the said OA was allowed by relying upon the afore quoted judgments and also the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Allahabad Bench in OA No. 523/2007 - Sanjay Charles Vs. UOI and others Allahabad Bench. In the case of Sanjay Charles (Supra), following has been observed: -
"25. The judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ petition no. 3263/2006, which confirmed the order of this Tribunal in the OA No. 15 O.A. NO. 523/2007 2867/2002, was followed by the Tribunal in another case of Sunil Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others in OA No. 823/2007 and the order dated 22.10.2010 of this Tribunal in 823/2007 stated as under:-
"8. One important legal issue calls for consideration at this juncture. True, the Full Bench would have stated that there need not be a full fledged inquiry and the Respondents have heavily relied upon the same in their ANAND Page 11 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 12 written submission. And on the basis of the same a division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 401 of 2007 had held that in such a case of termination of Bunglow Peons on temporary status, there is no need to even put them to notice. The Full Bench order is dated 13th February, 1999. In the said order, there is a reference of instructions for appointment of substitute Bunglow Peons / Khalasis vide 803-E/I/Pt. X/IIV dated 13.01.1995. The same reference has been made in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 3263/2006 (though indicating issued in January, 1995) and the following extract has been made from out of that reference:
"ii. Person who has attained temporary status cannot be discharged from service without applying full procedure as described in the D&A Rules. The grant of ty. Status to Bunglow peon before 2 years service will create problems for the office in case Bunglow Peon indulge in unwarranted activities. No officer will allow his family members to be dragged in Official D&A enquiring etc. Thus condition of two years service for grant of ty. Status to Bunglow Khalasi is a must.
iii. The above conditions are not included in the IREC of IREM as Bunglow peons is a special category as they are neither casual labour nor substitute. Their service condition, until they attain temporary Status after completion of two years continuous service, are governed by the administrative orders issued from time to time with the approval of competent authority on Zonal Railways."
9. After quoting the above portion of the Railway Board's letter, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: -
"4. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 had attained the temporary status and the procedure under the D&A Rules was admittedly not followed while discharging him from service for unsatisfactory conduct. In any case, the certificate given to the respondent no. 1 by Shri Sangeev Garg and the grant of temporary status to him rules out the pleas that the respondent no. 1's conduct was not satisfactory. Thus in light of ANAND Page 12 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 13 the above fact, the findings of the CAT are wholly sustainable and not liable to be interfered with.
5. In view of the findings recorded above, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ is consequently dismissed and stands disposed of. Miscellaneous applications for exemption and interim stay also stand disposed of as having become infructuous.
10. Now, between the decision of Full Bench of the Tribunal (coupled with the division Bench judgment cited above) and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, obviously, the latter has to be followed. This is the settled law See Sub- Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A Coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench".
11. Thus we respectfully follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this case."
26. Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in another similar case of bungalow khalasi/peon whose services were also terminated, in the case of Baijnath Mandal vs Union of India & Ors (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98608461) in W.P.(C) 4151/2008, has held as under:-
"16. There can be no dispute that when an employee has been granted a temporary status and the order of his termination is stigmatic and punitive, and not of discharge simplicitor, then a departmental inquiry has to precede the termination. For when the order of termination is stigmatic, termination of an employee without holding a departmental enquiry would be in violation of principles of natural justice. It has severe consequences for the employee, since he ANAND Page 13 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 14 gets branded and blemished with the stigmatic declaration made against him, thus marring his future prospects of employment.
17. In the present case, the termination was due to alleged misbehaviour of the Petitioner, and hence, is stigmatic and punitive. Such termination, without holding a departmental enquiry, is clearly impermissible. The Respondents should have conducted a departmental enquiry before termination of the services, thereby providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to meet the accusations of his misbehaviour. The procedure as contained in the Rules of 1968 was required to be followed. Instead, the Respondents resorted to a short cut method by issuance of a stigmatic termination order dated 30.04.2002 and terminating his services. Since there was no departmental enquiry conducted before the termination, in accordance to the procedure prescribed in Rules of 1968, the termination order is against the principles of natural justice and hereby set aside. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the CAT, are hereby quashed. Consequently, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner within four weeks with all consequential benefits including notional fixation and fitment of salary for the period he was out of service, though he would not be entitled to any actual arrears of salary. In other words, all consequential benefits, except back wages, shall be given to the Petitioner. The said orders of pay fixation, fitment, and notional increments, etc shall be issued within four weeks of the Petitioner's joining the service pursuant to the present order."
27. The averment of the applicant in the OA that after the incident on 25.12.2006 he was not allowed any duty by the respondent No. 3 with whom he was attached, has not been specifically contradicted by the respondents in their pleadings except stating that the applicant was issued a letter dated 05.01.2007 advising him to join duty. Although there is no representation or letter of the applicant to the higher authority that he was not being given any duty after 25.12.2006, it is clear from the record that he was not allowed any duty after 25.12.2006 and there is no document produced by the respondents to show that he was actually allotted the duty by the officer to whom he was attached. After receipt of the notice dated 5.1.2007, the applicant has stated that he immediately went to the ANAND Page 14 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 15 bungalow of the respondent no. 3 for duty, but he was not allowed to resume the work and this contention has also not been specifically denied by the respondents. Applicant represented on 20.03.2007 (Annexure A-8) in which he stated that he was not being allowed duty since 26.12.2006 although he was present in the bunglow. The representation dated 20.03.2007 has been admitted by the respondents in the pleadings, but no reply was sent to the applicant before issuing the termination order dated 17.04.2007 or the contentions in the representation dated 20.03.2007 did not seem to have been taken note of by the authorities, as there is no pleading to that effect available 18 O.A. NO. 523/2007 on record. Hence, it is clear that the pleas of the applicant to the authorities were not duly considered before passing the impugned termination order dated 17.04.2007 and that the said impugned order dated 17.04.2007 is stigmatic and punitive.
28. It is clear that as per the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as quoted in para 25 and 26 above, services of a casual employee with temporary status, cannot be terminated for unsatisfactory conduct or a punitive measure without following the procedure laid down for the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the judgment of Full Bench of this Tribunal which was followed in two cases cited by the respondents will not be helpful for the respondents. Further, since the applicant in this case has been allowed temporary status, the impugned order dated 17.04.2007, terminating his services without following the procedure as applicable for disciplinary proceeding, is violative of the Article 311(2) of the constitution of India. Hence, the reply to the issue at (iii) of para 16 is answered in positive.
29. Regarding the reply to the issue no (iv) of para 16 of this order, as discussed above, the termination order for the applicant's service on the ground of misconduct has to be passed under the rules applicable for disciplinary proceedings. Hence, such termination order is required to be issued by the appointing authority as per the ANAND Page 15 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 16 provisions of the rules for disciplinary proceedings. The appointment order dated 15.06.1995 for the applicant (Annexure A-3) is signed by Assistant Personnel Officer with approval or the General Manager. Hence, the appointing authority for the applicant is considered to be the General Manager. The authority issuing the impugned termination order is Controller of Stores, who is obviously subordinate authority to the General Manager. However, the order has noted that it has the approval of the competent authority (para 17 be referred to). Hence, we answer the issue no (iv) of para 16 in positive.
30. Regarding challenge to some of the paragraphs of the policy Circular dated 14.04.2003, we do not find any justification for interfering with said Circular in view of our findings that services of an employee with temporary status cannot be terminated on the ground of misconduct without following the rules for disciplinary proceedings in spite of the provisions in the Circular dated 14.04.2003, we are unable to accept the pleas of the applicant in respect of the Circular dated 14.04.2003. 31. While considering the policy circular for engagement of bungalow khalasi/peon in Railways, we noted a judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Uttam Kumar Tewari vs Union Of India in OA No. 875/2013 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62346876), following observations were made by this Tribunal in the order, regarding the policy of engaging bungalow khalasi:-
"10. Before we part with this order, we are constrained to observe that the engagement of Bungalow Khalasis now being given the glorified designation of TADK is a matter to be re- looked by the Respondent-Railway Board. It is understood that no rules or regulations are being followed in their appointments. The Respondents have neither framed any Recruitment Rules for the said post nor they notify the vacancies. Their appointments are made in an arbitrary ANAND Page 16 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 17 manner by the officers concerned. Even in this case, Respondent No.4 has been boasting in his complaint to the police that he was instrumental in getting him employed as TADK. When the Apex Court in a number of judgments has frowned upon the administration to stop backdoor entries into the Government, the appointments of TADKs through the officers concerned are still going on at the whims and fancies of the officers. Further, it is observed that the Respondent No.4 in this case is only a Dy. Chief Engineer, which is comparatively of a very lower level post. Such officers are also allowed to engage their own Bungalow Khalasis without even considering the fact whether there is no sufficient accommodation available with them. In this case, the Respondent No.4 is not in possession of any Bungalow allotted by the Railway but only a lower type of accommodation in Babar Road. Therefore, in our considered view, such uncontrolled freedom to the officials to appoint TADK on their own and later leaving the burden upon the Railways to grant them temporary status and regular appointment cannot be allowed.
11. We, therefore, direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi to look into this matter so that if at all it is necessary to appoint TADKs, such appointments shall be made in accordance with the rules and not according to the whims and fancies of the officials concerned as in the present case."
32. With reference to the discussions in paragraphs 30 and 31 above, while we do not interfere with the existing circular dated 14.4.2003, we would like to reiterate the observations of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 875/2013 as quoted above in paragraph 31 above and also suggest a review of the circular dated 14.4.2003 by the respondents in the light of the observations in this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent no. 1 for taking necessary action as deemed appropriate in this regard.
33. In view of the above discussions and taking into account the legal precedents and case laws discussed, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order, being stigmatic and punitive in nature, cannot be sustained and hence, it is liable to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.4.2007 (AnnexureA-1 to the OA) is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service as substitute bungalow khalasi/TADK with temporary status, if the applicant is ANAND Page 17 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 18 not reinstated already by virtue of the interim order passed by this Tribunal and to allow all consequential benefits of service as per rules to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate action as per rules in case there is any allegation of misconduct against the applicant.
34. The OA is allowed in terms of the paragraphs 32 and 33 above. There will be no order as to costs."
11. In another case of Shri Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs. UOI (O.A. No. 2867/2002) decided on 24.11.2005, CAT, Principal Bench has observed as under:-
"37. In my considered view the grounds of termination against applicant were though under the guise of unwillingness performance or unsatisfactory of applicant to work, which on misuse of the powers are really founded on the misconduct of applicant which has not been probed into and thus deprivation of reasonable opportunity and when resort to the rules under the Discipline and Appeal Rules ibid the decision of the Full Bench would not be applicable in the present case as it is not the unsatisfactory performance on which services of applicant have been dispensed with but it is the attitude and conduct of the supervisory officer which led to non-accord of duty to applicant. However, I am not competent authority to adjudge this. The same will be considered as per law.
38. In my considered view the order is punitive under the guise of simple order of termination; applicant's services have been dispensed with without resort to the disciplinary proceeding which is not only bad in law but against equity and all canons of justice.
39. It is very strange that there is no definine finding of unauthorized absence. Once, in show cause notice an ANAND Page 18 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 19 opportunity to resume duty, failing which stipulation required disciplinary action shows that absence was not established. As such, terminating the services is against the decision of respondents and in its contradiction to hold disciplinary proceedings. This is a short cut adopted by respondents to dispense with the service of the applicant.
40. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, O.A. is allowed. Impugned order terminating the services of the applicant is set aside. Respondents are directed to re-instate applicant forthwith with all consequential benefits, including back wages. However, if so advised, respondents are not precluded from taking any appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs."
12. In this case, it is admitted fact that the applicant was granted temporary status. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the services of a temporary status employee can be terminated without holding any disciplinary proceedings or whether it is necessary to follow the due process of law and principles of natural justice before taking such action.
13. In the present matter, the services of the applicant were terminated by order dated 13.07.2020 on the ground that of unsatisfactory service. The respondents have also raised a ground ANAND Page 19 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 20 of remained absent from duty to justify the impugned action. It is stated by the respondents that warning letter was issued to the, but he did not acknowledge the same. Therefore, his services were terminated.
14. It is not in dispute that the applicant was granted temporary status with effect from 19.01.2019. Once temporary status was conferred, the applicant was entitled to the protection and safeguards available to a temporary railway employee under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
15. The record shows that the applicant's services were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory service and alleged unauthorized absence from duty 26.03.2020 to 10.06.2020 and a warning letter was issued before passing the impugned order but it is admitted that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted before passing the termination order. The termination thus rests upon the foundation of alleged misconduct, namely unsatisfactory and unauthorized absence, and not on any administrative ground or simplicitor discharge.
16. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lakhi Ram (supra) and Baijnath Mandal (supra), as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ANAND Page 20 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 21 Basant Lal (supra), have clearly held that once temporary status is granted, an employee is entitled to the protection of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and any stigmatic or punitive termination without enquiry is bad in law and violative of natural justice. Similarly, the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in Sanjay Charles (supra) and Dharmendra Kumar Yadav (supra) cases have consistently held that where termination is founded on allegations of unauthorized absence or misconduct, it cannot be treated as a simple discharge and must be preceded by a proper disciplinary proceeding.
17. In the present case, no enquiry was held, no charge sheet was issued and the applicant was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the termination order dated 13.07.2020 is punitive in nature and having been passed without following the procedure under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 and it is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and quashed.
ANAND Page 21 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY 22
18. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, the Original Application No. 485/2020 is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure A-13 of OA) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service as TADK with temporary status. In case the post held by the applicant at the time of termination is not available, he shall be accommodated against any other suitable post, if the applicant is willing to accept the same. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of service, except back wages, as admissible under rules, which shall be extended to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law, if so advised.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member Anand...
ANAND Page 22 of 22 2025.12.09 PRAKASH 16:41:41+05'30' DUBEY