Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Lal Chand Bind Son Of Bechu Lal vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 25 March, 2011
RESERVED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH : ALLAHABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 468 OF 2008 ALLAHABAD THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2011 Honble Mr. S. N. Shukla, Member-A Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member-J Lal Chand Bind son of Bechu Lal, Resident of village-Ganga Rampur, Post Office Abholi, District-Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi (Terminated from the post of Assistant Station Master Ratanpura, District Mau, North East Railway, Division, Varanasi. . . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Sri S. Narain Sri R. K. Pandey Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager, North East Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. General Manager (Personnel), North East Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. Senior Divisional Manager (Operation) North East Railway, Varanasi. 4. Divisional Manger (Operating) North East Railway, Varansi. . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate : Shri P. N. Rai O R D E R
By Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member-J By way of the instant Original Application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the applicant seeks quashing of the order dated 27th December, 2007 passed by respondent No.4 and order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by respondent no.3 page 27 and 30 of the original application respectively.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant herein was selected as Assistant Station Master in North East Railway on 17th December, 1996. After successfully completing his training he was posted as such vide order dated 21st February, 1997. It is submitted that the applicant belongs to reserve category i.e. Scheduled Caste and certificate to this effect has been issued to him by the competent authority on the basis of that he was selected. On 02nd July, 2007 the applicant was placed under suspension/Annexure No.3. Against order of suspension applicant approached to this Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 722 of 2007 Lal Chand Bind Vs. Union of India and others It came up for preliminary hearing on 24th July, 2007 and this Tribunal was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order of suspension Annexure-A-4. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order of 26th September, 2007 revoking the order of suspension dated 02nd July, 2007 Annexure-A-4. It is further submitted by the applicant he moved application to the respondents to provide him documents so as to file reply, he actually filed Misc. Application in the above stated O.A. i.e. Misc. Application No. 2178 of 2007 which was decided on 19th October, 2007 this Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to provide the documents demanded by the applicant/Annexure-A-5. It is further alleged that despite the above stated order passed by the Tribunal the respondents did not produce the copies of the documents asked by the applicant. Then the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) also put a note on 10th December, 2007 to provide him the copy, but that was also not complied with by the respondents. It is submitted that an ex-parte inquiry was also conducted by the respondents and on the basis of the inquiry report dated 30th October, 2007 the impugned order was passed on 27th December, 2007 which take effect from 28th October, 2007 and the applicant was removed from service. Against this order the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by passing impugned order dated 27th December, 2007, hence the O.A.
3. Upon notice the respondents filed a detailed Counter Affidavit. In the Counter Affidavit the respondents have taken a stand that the applicant secured the appointment by means of misleading that he belongs to Scheduled Caste whereas, he belongs to B.C. category, therefore, a complaint was received and the matter was traced by the respondents and it was transpired that the applicant did not belong to Scheduled Caste category and he actually belongs to B.C. category. Therefore, a proper inquiry was conducted in which the applicant was also called but he did not appear and chosen to abstain himself from appearing in the inquiry proceedings. Accordingly an ex-parte inquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer and the competent authority has passed the impugned, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned ordered hence respondents prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
4. We have heard Sri Shyamal Narain assisted by Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P. N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that in the instance case the respondents have acted in a malafide manner, the applicant was appointed in the year 1997 and he remains in service till the impugned order was passed that he has more than ten years of service and there is nothing against him. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the pretext that the applicant has secured the appointment by means of fraud i.e. by disclosing the fact that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category whereas he belong to B.C. category. He further submitted that the certificate on the basis of which the applicant was selected was already inquired into by the respondents and in which a report dated 11th October, 2000 was submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and it was found that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Therefore without taking into account the certificate submitted by the applicant and report thereupon. Respondents behind the back of the applicant sought another report from the Tehsildar,which was acted upon and the impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that the certificate issued is his favour till date has not been cancelled. He also placed reliance upon an order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 426 of 2006 decided on 04th June, 2008 Anand Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors and argued that that the instant Original Application may also be decided in terms of above stated order. He also referred to the judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development and Others (1994) 6 SCC 241 and argued that in terms of this judgment of Honble Apex Court the respondents are bound to refer the matter of the applicant to the committee constituted for this purpose in terms of the above stated judgment. Since the impugned orders have been passed deliberately in this regard and the direction given by Honble Supreme Court in the above stated case, therefore, also impugned order is liable to set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order has been passed after calling report from the Tehsildar which was approved by the District Magistrate, therefore, there is no scope left for any illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that a proper inquiry was conducted in which the applicant did not appear once he has been given a chance to plead his case before Inquiry Officer and he did not take the same and on the later stage he can not plead that the principle of natural justice has not been complied or he has not afforded an opportunity to defend his case.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by parties counsel and we also gone through the record. The question is to be determined by this Tribunal is whether the case of the applicant is to be referred to a committee constituted in terms of direction given by this Court in Original Application No. 426 of 2006 decided on 04th June, 2008 Anand Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors or not before passing the impugned order? Admittedly, the case of the applicant has not been forwarded to a Committee constituted in terms of the guidelines given by Honble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra).
In a recent order passed in the case of 2009 STPL(Web) 158 SC State of Maharashtra and ANR Vs. Vijay Panditrao Visale and ANR and Honble Apex Court has held as under:-
2. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties quite at length. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in writ petition no. 1455 of 2003.
3. the short controversy which arises for consideration in this case is whether respondent no.1 Vijay Panditrao Visale belongs to Thakur (Scheduled Tribe) or not. In our considered view, there has to be a comprehensive inquiry by the Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short the Committee). The Committee must take into consideration entire documentary evidence, oral evidence, ethnic linkages and affinity test and arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether the respondents belongs to the category of Thakur (Scheduled Tribe).
3. We direct that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall carry out this exercise immediately without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Committee may permit parties to adduce additional evidence.
5. The matter is remitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the appeal is disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The respondents themselves behind the back of the applicant called for the report and passed impugned order. Admittedly, applicant was called to associate in the inquiry proceedings but he chose not to appear on the pretext that he had not been provided the documents despite the direction given by this Tribunal. Be that it may be, it is the duty of the respondents that before deciding the issue of caste that whether a particular person belongs to caste A or B the matter is to be referred to a committee. Admittedly, the respondents in the instant case have been conducted an ex-parte inquiry and the matter has not been referred to the committee, therefore without going into other question that whether the applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste category or B.C. category we deem it appropriate that, in terms of judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court which followed subsequently by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 426 of 2006 we hereby set aside the impugned orders dated 27th December, 2007 passed by respondent No.4 and order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by respondent no.3 (page 27 and 30 of the original application respectively) and remit the matter back to the respondents with a direction to refer the case of the applicant to the State Level Scrutiny Committee as provided in the direction issued by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) and thereafter pass the order. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed.
Member-J Member-A
/Dev/
??
??
??
??
6