Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Gopal Prasad vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2022
1
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad this the 15th day of February, 2022
Original Application No. 330/01149/2011
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Ram Gopal Prasad, S/O Late Mewa Lal, Senior Section Engineer (Works);
Mughalsarai (Distt.-Chandauli), Address for all communications:- C/o Shri
Prabhu Prasad; at Lot no.:-1, Main Tali, Mughalsarai (Distt.- Chandauli).
. . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri K.K. Mishra
VERSUS
1. The Union of India Notice to be served upon the General Manager, East
Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Mughalsarai Division, Mughalsarai (District Chandauli).
(The Alleged Appellate authority)
3. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination) East Central Railway,
Mughalsarai Division, Mughalsarai (District-Chandauli).
(The alleged Disciplinary authority)
4. Smt. Garima Srivastava, The Deputy Chief Personal Officer, I.R. & W.
East Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar).
5. Sri B.K. Roy, Senior Inquiry Officer (Vigilance Cell), East Central
Railway, Hajipur, (Bihar).
6. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai,
Chandauli.
7. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai,
Chandauli.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri P.K. Rai
Page 1 of 4
2
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative) Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him which culminated in imposition of an order of dismissal from service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in the Indian Railways in the year 1987 as an Inspector of Works (in short IOW).He was enjoying the fruits of his employment uninterruptedly enjoying his salary, and promotion till the year 2002, when on account of some complaint his schedule caste certificate and status came under scrutiny. It was alleged that he had obtained a false schedule caste certificate and on the basis of the said certificate obtained appointment in the Railways. After a preliminary enquiry he was issued a charge sheet under Rule 9 of the Indian Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1967. To cut a long story short an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer held that the schedule caste certificate was wrongfully obtained by the applicant and the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of penalty of dismissal from service. The applicant had initially challenged the charge sheet by way of filing an OA before this Tribunal but however, it was directed that since he had already joined the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings he should be allowed a fair opportunity to present his case and accordingly the enquiry was culminated. On a second occasion when the applicant approached this Tribunal, this Tribunal directed that the representation which he had preferred may be considered as an appeal by a higher authority and accordingly but that appeal was also rejected. However, vide an order dated 01.08.2012 this Page 2 of 4 3 Tribunal directed that since the order of dismissal from service was never communicated to the applicant, therefore, he should be allowed to continue in service till the next date of hearing. To conclude this narration, despite an order of dismissal from service which was never communicated to the applicant, the applicant continues to be in service till date.
4. Although we have a very voluminous case file, as this case is now 11 years old, and the learned counsel for both the parties have quoted from a catena of judgments including the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which the learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted before us in PDF, in our view the controversy is quite straight forward. The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted a synopsis quoting various judgments. We are of the opinion that the very limited issue involved in this case is whether the schedule caste certificate of the applicant is valid or not as on date. We have on record a supplementary counter reply dated 05.01.2022 filed by the respondents in which the respondents have answered the query raised by us during the course of hearing on an earlier occasion. It would be worthwhile to quote from para 7 of the said supplementary counter reply which reads as under:-
"7. That it is also submitted that answering respondent have no knowledge regarding the fact that the alleged caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar in favour of the applicant has been cancelled or not as on date by the competent authority."
5. Now it is quite obvious that there is a single charge against the applicant, the charge being that his schedule caste status and certificate is false. Merely stating that the certificate is false or has been obtained by deceit is not enough unless it is established that the certificate was found to be false by the authority competent to issue and cancel such a certificate. It is no one's case that the said certificate has been cancelled or held to be invalid by a competent authority. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 3 of 4 4 has given elaborate directions and guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judgment rendered on 02.09.1994. There is no evidence that the scrutiny of the certificate has been done in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, we cannot ignore the categorical admission of the respondents that they do not have any knowledge with respect to the validity of this caste certificate as on date. So it is ironical that on the one hand the respondents are not aware if the caste certificate has been cancelled or not, and on the other hand they are sticking to the stand that the caste certificate is false.
6. On this simple ground the present disciplinary proceedings against the applicant do not hold and are quashed ab-initio. The article of charges dated 27.08.2002 issued to the applicant stand quashed and as a logical corollary the subsequent enquiry and the order of penalty imposed upon the applicant too stand quashed. The applicant shall be deemed to have been in uninterrupted service without any stigma.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the original application stands allowed. No order as to costs.
9. All associated MAs are also disposed of.
(Pratima K Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (Judicial) Member(Administrative)
/Neelam/
Page 4 of 4