Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sachchidananda Ram vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 20 December, 2011
Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 20th DAY of DECEMBER, 2011) Honble Mr. D.C.Lakha, Member (A) Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) Original Application No.1241 of 2011 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) 1. Sachchidananda Ram, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Ram Pravesh Ram, R/o Quarter No. 152/ABC European Colony, Mugalsari, District, Chandauli Presently posted as, Guard/Mail-Express At East Central Railway, Mugalsari. 2. Mukesh Kumar, Aged about 56 years, S/o Late Pyare Lal, Resident of 560/B, Old Central Colony, Mughalsarai, District, Chandauli Presently posted as Guard/Mail-Express At East Central Railway, Mugalsari. 3. Jagarnath Prasad, Aged about 51 years, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o 40 feet Road, Marahupur, Mughalsarai, District, Chandauli, Presently posted as Guard/Mail-Express At East Central Railway, Mugalsari. 4. Anil Kumar Singh, Aged about 55 years, S/o Late Ramashish Singh, Resident of BP/660, Subhash Nagar, Mughalsarai, District, Chandauli. Presently posted as Guard/Mail-Express S/o Late Vasudeo Yadav, R/o Quarter No. 634/B, Railway Kharkhura Colony, Gaya Presently posted as Senior Goods Guard At East Central Railway, Gaya. 36. Niranjan Kumar Sinha, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Siddheshwar Prasad, Resident of Quarter No. 128/AB, Marshalling Yard, Railway Colony, Gaya Presently posted as Guard at East Central Railway, Gaya. Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar. 2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mughal Sarai (U.P.). 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Mughal Sarai (U.P.) 5. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) East Central Railway, Mugal Sarai U.P. 6. The Railway Board, through the Chairman, New Delhi. Respondents Present for Applicant : Shri Shyamal Narain Present for Respondents : Shri Avnish Tripathi O R D E R
By Honble Mr. D. C. Lakha, Member (A) We have heard Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Tripathi, counsel for the respondents.
2. On 17.10.2011 and thereafter, on 14.11.2011 the respondents were given time to file the counter reply and to produce the record pertaining to the issuance of show cause notice before passing the impugned orders. The counter reply has been filed but the supporting documents/record is not filed even today. The learned counsel for the applicant has emphatically referred to Para 4.14 & 4.15 page 28 of OA that no notice or opportunity of hearing is given to the applicant before passing the impugned orders by which the benefit of MACP granted earlier has been cancelled.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the opportunity was given and this contention taken in Para 22 of the counter reply with the supporting annexure CR 2, dated 16.5.2011. The letter dated 16.5.2011, of the respondents is stative of the fact that the concerned officials were to be given three days time to put up their reply to the proposed rejection of the MACP, given earlier, by way of impugned orders dated 20th May, 2011 (Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3) issued on 20.05.2011. In this connection the relevant record was necessary to verify as to whether the notice was given to the applicants before the impugned orders were passed. Enough time has been given to respondents to produce this record. The only fact is to be proved by the respondents to us whether the letter dated 16.5.2011 was served on the applicants or not before passing the impugned order. But no record to this effect has been produced so far and accordingly, the reply in the counter remains unsustainable with respect to averments and contentions therein. Due to the non availability of the record the counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the claim of the applicants.
4. We have heard both the counsels for the parties and perused record before us. It is amply clear that before passing the impugned orders dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3) the applicants have not been given the opportunity of hearing or to put up their reply to the show cause notice and the MACP granted earlier to these applicants has been cancelled by the impugned orders. This is glaringly against the principle of natural justice and against the settled law.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances and the contention of both the counsels, we are convinced that the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and not at all sustainable. No purpose shall be served by keeping the OA pending for further consideration as this is the only relief being sought in this OA. In view of these circumstances we quash the impugned order but, however, respondents are at liberty to go ahead with the case of the applicants after giving the opportunity of hearing as per law. It is also provided that as a result of quashing the impugned orders the applicants shall be restored to the position as it existed before passing of impugned orders. The financial benefits shall accordingly be restored to them immediately. Accordingly the O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.
Member (J) Member (A) Shashi ?? ?? ?? ??