Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ashish Kumar Son Of Sri Vijayee Ram vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 20 July, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Original Application No. 330/00864/2016
Reserved on 19.7.2016
Pronounced on 20.7.2016
Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J)
Honble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Ashish Kumar son of Sri Vijayee Ram, aged about 22 years , resident of Village Bakhara, Post Sahupuri, District- Chandauli.
Applicant
By Advocate; Sri Sailesh Kumar Shukla
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad, through its Chairman.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri R.K. Srivastava
ORDER
By Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J) This O.A. is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act, for the following reliefs:-
A) to pass an order quashing the impugned order dated 2.5.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. A-1 in the compilation I to the Original Application).
B) To pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of applicant for appointment on the post of Group D Cadre pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2013 dated 27.4.2013 as per his placement in the selection of Group D Cadre.
C) To pass any other suitable order or direction which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D) To award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case of the applicant is as follows:-
2.1 That the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad issued Employment Notice No. 1/2013 dated 27.4.2013 for recruitment against Group D posts in various categories. The applicant being fully eligible for Group D post, applied for the same well within time.
2.2 In pursuance of the same, written examination was held on 2.11.2014 and the applicant appeared in Scheduled Caste Category and allotted Roll No. 1110001586 having Control No. 83113182 and attendance slip was issued to the applicant for appearing in the written examination.
2.3 That after successful written examination, the respondents called upon the applicant to appear in physical efficiency test, which was conducted on 10.3.2015 at DSA Ground near Allahabad Station in which the applicant was also declared successful.
2.4 That thereafter, the respondents No. 2 issued a memorandum on 27.1.2016 stating therein that your thumb impression during document verification did not match with the written and physical efficiency test. It means someone else had appeared in your place in these examination impersonating your candidature and directed to show cause within 30 days of issue of this memorandum.
2.4 That in pursuance of notice dated 27.1.2016, the applicant gave his explanation on 3.2.2016 through registered post to the respondent No.2 which was delivered to the office of respondent No. 2 on 5.2.2016.
2.5 That thereafter, respondent No. 2 without considering the explanation/ reply given by the applicant passed an order on 2.5.2016 by which the candidature of the applicant for the post of Group D has been cancelled and also debarred the applicant from examination and appointment in Railway for life time.
2.6 That after receiving the order dated 2.5.2016, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the respondent No. 2 by registered post on 17.5.2016.
2.7 That the respondent No. 2 has imposed a major punishment on the applicant by the impugned order without giving him any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Thus the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
2.8 That condition of cancelling the candidature of the applicant and debarring him from all the RRC/ RRB examination for appointment in Railways for life time is not mentioned in the Employment Notice. The applicant is a meritorious candidate and he has been declared successful in all steps but due to human error the applicant is not sure that whether right or left thumb impression were taken each time.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla and learned counsel for respondents Sri R.K. Srivastava. With the consent of both the counsel, the case is heard finally at the admission stage.
3. The grievance of the applicant is that the impugned order dated 2.5.2016 is passed by the respondents without considering the reply filed by the applicant in pursuance of the memorandum dated 27.1.2016. It is clearly mentioned in the impugned order dated 2.5.2016 that your reply/representation was required to be submitted to this office by 26.2.2016, failing which action shall be taken as proposed in show cause notice. But you have failed to submit any reply within the stipulated period of notice which shows that you have nothing to say in this manner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 2.5.2016, the applicant preferred the present O.A.
4. The contention of the applicant is that he has submitted the reply through registered post on 3.2.2016 and this Tribunal vide order dated 13.7.2016 directed the learned counsel for applicant to submit the postal receipt in original on the next date since no postal receipt has been filed in the O.A. to establish that the applicant has given reply within time and the case was listed for 19.7.2016. On 19.7.2016, in pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal dated 13.7.2016, the learned counsel for applicant produced the original receipt of Postal Department dated 3.2.2016 by which the reply was sent through Registered Post to the Chairman, North Central Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell, Allahabad-211001.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the applicant has produced the original postal receipt before the Court, through which it is clear that applicant has sent the reply to the memorandum dated 27.1.2016 on 3.2.2016 by registered post to the Chairman, North Central Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell, Allahabad-211001, we direct the respondents to consider the reply of the applicant and thereafter take a decision afresh and decision so taken be communicated to the applicant. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
6. With the above observations, O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(NITA CHOWDHURY) (JUSTICE DINESH GUPTA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
HLS/-
4