Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena vs Union Of India : Through on 9 February, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
1. OA No. 1615 of 2008
With
2. O.A.No.1449 of 2008
3. O.A. No.1456 of 2008
4. O.A. No.1489 of 2008
5. O.A. No.1515 of 2008
6. O.A. No.1522 of 2008
7. O.A. No.1523 of 2008
8. O.A. No.1616 of 2008
9. O.A. No.1618 of 2008
10. O.A. No.1623 of 2008
New Delhi this the 9th day of February, 2009
Honble Mr. Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy, Member (J)
Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A)
1. OA No.1615 of 2008
Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena,
S/o Shri Ram Sahai Meena,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
2. O.A.No.1449 of 2008
Shri Virender Pal Singh,
S/o Shri Ram Vir Singh,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi. .... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
3. OA No.1456 of 2008
Shri Manjuddin Khan,
S/o Shri Ajmeri Khan,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exch. Headquarters Office/ New Delhi.
R/o Sarai Kalan Khan,
Hazrat Nizaduddin,
New Delhi. .... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
4. OA No.1489 of 2008
Shri Raghubir Singh,
S/o Shri Balu Ram,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
R/o 33, Sarai Kalan Khan,
New Delhi-110 033.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
5. OA No.1515 of 2008
Shri Kailash Chand Barwa,
S/o Shri Parbhati Lal,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Control/ New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
6. OA No.1522 of 2008
Shri Sharif Mohd.,
S/o Shri Jahoor Khan,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
R/o 203, Gali No.5,
Sir Ram Nagar,
Shahadara,
New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
7. OA No.1523 of 2008
Shri Hari Narain Verma,
S/o Shri Badha Ram,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
8. O.A. No.1616 of 2008
Shri Nissar Khan,
S/o Shri Alladin Khan,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
9. O.A. No.1618 of 2008
Shri Ram Dayal Meena,
S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Meena,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
10. O.A. No.1623 of 2008
Shri Shakrudeen Khan,
S/o Shri Ram Gafoor Khan,
Working as Ex. Substitute,
Khallasi
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
Tele/Exchange/ New Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Manjeet Singh Reen)
VERSUS
Union of India : Through
1. The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Honble Mr. Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy, Member (J) :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. As all these OAs are based on common question of law and facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by a common order.
3. In all these 10 OAs, the applicants, who were working as Khallasis under the respondents, are questioning the order dated 23.5.2008 made by the disciplinary authority ordering removal from service with immediate effect.
4. The charge levelled against the applicants in all theses OAs is that the applicants with the connivance of one Shri Rattan Kumar and another Shri Jhalum Singh obtained bogus and forged casual labour certificates and obtained employment in the Railways as Khallasis on the basis of those certificates. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 1994. As the disciplinary proceedings had not been completed even in the year 2007, all of them approached this Tribunal by filing different OAs which were disposed of on 19.9.2007 directing the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings by passing a final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders made in the respective OAs. A rider was also added that the time stipulation was subject to utmost cooperation being extended by the respective applicants. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings came to be disposed of in the year 2007 on different dates, which are not germane to the issue involved. In all the matters, removal order visited them. The applicants carried the matter in appeal to the competent authority, which disposed of all the appeals in July, 2008 dismissing all the appeals.
5. Under the provisions of Rule 24 (3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, against an order of removal, an aggrieved person may within 45 days after the disposal of the appeal prefer a revision petition. However, the applicants herein approached this Tribunal without availing that opportunity.
6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that unless the remedy provided under Rule 24 is exhausted by the applicants, these OAs are not maintainable and he placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 (1) AISLJ 98. Countering this argument, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the expression used in Rule 24 is may and not shall and it is not mandatory that a revision petition be filed by the applicants before approaching the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection of the applicants are given an opportunity to have these applications treated as revision petitions of the applicants and for the revisional authority to pass orders thereon, and if they are aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the revisional authority in these revision petitions, they can approach this Honble Tribunal. The learned counsel of the applicants agreed to this course of action without demur. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the revisional authority to treat these applications of the applicants as revision petitions and pass orders thereon within a specified time.
8. These OAs are accordingly disposed of with a direction to the revisional authority to treat these OAs as revision petitions of the applicants and dispose all of them by making a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
9. A copy of this order be placed in all the connected OAs.
(Shailendra Pandey ) (Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy) Member (A) Member (J) /ravi/