Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Anjan Ray vs Eastern Railway on 27 May, 2025
1 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/00100/2022 Heard on 30.04.2025
With
M.A. 350/00255/2022 Date of Order: 27.05.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
ANJAN RAY, Chief Personnel Officer (IR)
working under Principal Chief Personnel
Officer, Eastern Railway residing at FLAT- 1B,
Block B, Taruchhaya, 9, James Long Sarani,
Kolkata-700008.
.............Applicant.
-versus-
1. UNION OF INDIA service through the
General Manager, Eastern Railway, having
his office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Fairlie
Place, Kolkata-700001.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern
Railway having office at 17, Netaji Subhas
Road, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001.
3. Director General (HR), Railway Board,
256-A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New
Delhi-110001.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65=
DhanuRam
1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone=
ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d
ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b
Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022
4. Additional Member(HR), Railway Board,
256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-
110001.
5. Executive Director Establishment (GC),
Railway Board, 256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina
Road, New Delhi-110001.
6. Joint Secretary(Confidential), Railway
Board, 256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi-110001.
7. Director (Establishment) Railway Board,
256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-
110001.
8. Deputy Secretary Establishment (Special),
Railway Board, 256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina
Road, New Delhi-110001.
9. Director / Establishment (0)- 1/Railway
Board, 256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi-110001
........Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. A. Datta, Counsel
Mr. N. Biswas, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Chatterjee, Counsel
ORDER
Per Mr. Manish Garg, JM:
Heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties.Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022
2. The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"8.1 To quash and set aside the entire disciplinary proceedings since the said disciplinary had continued beyond the time frame prescribed by Hon'ble Tribunal particularly when the Hon'ble Tribunal had rejected the application for extension of time to continue the disciplinary proceedings.
8.2 To quash and set aside the order of penalty which had culminated as a result of continuance of the disciplinary proceedings in as much as the said disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
8.3 To direct the respondent authorities to set right the illegality committed by them in continuing the disciplinary proceedings and imposing the order of penalty in violation of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal and to bestow all consequential benefits to the applicant. 8.4 To set aside the reply dated 06.07.2021 passed by Deputy Secretary Establishment (Special), Railway Board since it was outcome of total non-application of mind and without considering the solemn direction passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
8.4 Show cause in terms of prayer 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 after hearing the cause make the rule absolute.
8.5 A direction as to costs of the proceedings to the respondents; 8.6 Any further order or orders, direction or directions as the Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice."
3. Highlighting the facts of this case, a charge sheet was issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 2nd March, 2017 (Annexure A/2) wherein one charge was framed against the applicant herein which reads as under: Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 "Article of charges - I Shri Anjan Ray, Dy.CPO(GAZ)/E.Rly./Kolkata while working as Chairman/RRC/E.Rly./Kolkata was responsible to set the question papers and to send it to private agency/agencies (specialised in confidential printing) of good reputation, proven integrity and proof of having conducted similar jobs for RRB, JEE, CAT etc., for printing of the same in terms of Joint Director Estt. (N)-II, Railway Board's letter No.E(NG)-II/96/RR-I/62 Dt.18/07/2005 (RBE 121/2005). But Shri Anjan Ray, the then Chairman/RRC/Kolkata had entrusted the job of printing to one Mi/s. lubar India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. of Madhyamgram, Kolkata, who had neither possessed any printing press nor have any experience of printing of similar confidential matter. M/s. lubar India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. of Madhyamgram, Kolkata outsourced the job of printing to one M/s. Swapna Printing Works Pvt Ltd of 52, Raja Ram Mohan Sarani, Kolkata-9, wherefrom the question papers were leaked out and has compelled the Railway Administration to cancel the said examinations of 23.11.2014 (2nd half) and 30.01.2014 (1st. & 2nd half). Ultimately Railway Administration has no other way except to conduct re-examination by incurring additional expenditure of Rs. 5,97,05,909/-, which has an adverse bearing on the credibility of the recruitment process on Indian Railways. By the above acts, Shri Anjan Ray, Dy.CPO(Gaz)/E.Rly., while working as Chairman, RRC/E.Rly./Kolkata, failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant and also failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities in contravention to the provisions of Rule 3. (1), (ii), (iii) & (xxi) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and as amended from time to time.
Sd/-
(Ghanshyam Singh) General Manager Eastern Railway"
4. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the applicant states that he preferred O.A. No. 1146 of 2017 before this Tribunal wherein an order came to be passed by this Tribunal on 31.01.2019 for challenging the chargesheet wherein the following order was passed with the consent of the parties' para 5, 6 & 7 page 49:Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 "5. Accordingly the O.A. is disposed of with consent of Ld. Counsel for both sides with a direction upon the respondent authorities, to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the applicant vide charge memo dated 02.3.2017, as per rules, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The applicant shall be at liberty to agitate appropriately, if aggrieved with the final order passed by the authority concerned, in the proceedings.
7. It is made clear that we have not gone into merits of the O.A. and therefore all the points shall remain open for the respondent authorities to consider the matter appropriately as per relevant rules and regulations governing the field, and in accordance with law."
5. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 01.11.2018. The applicant appeared before the Inquiry proceedings. The enquiry report dated 05.04.2019. The Original record has been produced on record. During the course of hearing, on perusal records, it is noticed that the Charge Officer submitted his written statement of defence against Charge Memorandum dated 13.04.2017. The preliminary hearing of inquiry was held on 10.08.2017. The Charged Officer submitted that on 30.08.2017 the CO had submitted his representation alleging biasness of IO. The Inquiry proceeding was stayed till the order/decision of the Revising Authority (i.e. Railway Board) is received in terms of extant rules. On 01.01.2018 after receiving comments of Vigilance Deptt. On 28.11.2017 on the representation of CO dated 30.08.2017, the said representation along with DA's views and relevant documents were sent to Railway Board vide letter dated 01.01.2018 for obtaining the decision/order of Revising authority. On 05.04.2019 after completion of Inquiry Proceedings, IO Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
6 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 submitted Inquiry report dated 05.04.2019, holding the article of charges against the CO, as proved. On 09.04.2019 the IO's report and records/documents of the Inquiry proceedings were forwarded to GM (Vig.)/ER vide letter dated 09.04.2019 for obtaining second stage advice. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the challenge to the different proceedings lay to the fact that the disciplinary proceedings has been continued beyond the prescribed time period as stipulated herein and even contrary to the letter sprit of the Order passed by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation which is already highlighted hereinabove. He would rely upon the two decisions to the same i.e. Writ Petition No. 145 of 2013, which reads as under:
"The order passed earlier by the learned Tribunal on 9th January, 2008 became final and binding since the said order was not challenged by the respondent authorities before any court of law. The petitioner herein filed an application praying for issuance of appropriate direction for reinstatement of the said petitioner in service since the enquiry proceeding in respect of the said petitioner stood automatically quashed pursuant to the earlier order passed by the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, the said Tribunal had no occasion to consider the validity and/or legality of the order passed on 9th January, 2008 whereby the Misc. Applications filed on behalf of the respondent authorities being M.A. Nos. 588-589 of 2005 were disposed of without granting any relief to the said respondents.
In our considered opinion, learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction and/or competence and/or authority to recall its earlier order passed on 9th January, 2008 since neither the petitioner nor even the respondent authorities prayed for recalling of the said order notwithstanding the fact that the said learned Tribunal had no authority and/or jurisdiction to recall any order which had already reached finality as parties to the said order did not challenge the validity and/or legality of the same before the competent forum.Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
7 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 For the aforementioned reasons, we are unable to affirm the decisions of the learned Tribunal and therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal on 12th October, 2012 in O.A. No. 70 of 2009. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and pay all admissible salary and allowances upon treating the said petitioner in service with effect from the date of quashing of the enquiry proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 25th July, 2005 in O.A. No. 268 of 2005. The respondent authorities are directed to pay regular salary and allowances to the petitioner immediately after joining the duties in terms of this order. The respondent authorities are also directed to calculate the arrear admissible dues of the petitioner in terms of this order within a period of 4 (four) weeks from date and disburse the same to the said petitioner within a period of 2 (two) weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed. In the facts of the present case, there will be however, no order as to costs." He also relied upon a decision rendered by the Madras High Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 17931 of 2014, which reads as under:
"31. The disciplinary proceedings in this case commenced by issuing a charge memo on 23 October 2008. The first respondent has taken about three years even to complete the enquiry. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the second show cause notice as early as on 9 June 2011. Even thereafter swift action was not taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner after submitting the representation to the second show cause notice waited for a period of two years and then filed W.P.No.9547 of 2013 challenging the charge memo once again. Even after fixing cut off date by the learned Judge, the Government machinery failed to move. It was only under such circumstances the petitioner has come up with this writ petition to put an end to the disciplinary proceedings."
6. Interestingly in the present matter we find that vide inquiry report and record of the document of inquiry proceedings were forwarded to GM Vigilance vide letter dated 09.04.2014 for obtaining second stage advice. The concerned advocate of the Railway instructed to file an M.A. seeking 06 months' time of completion of disciplinary proceedings. The said being M.A. Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 475 of 2019 extension of time for controlling department proceedings came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2019 which reproduced below:
"Ld. counsel for both the parties are present. MA filed by the respondents for extension of time is not maintainable since it has been filed beyond the time limit.
Accordingly, MA has become infructuous."
7. It is only after dismissal of the M.A. for extension of time and Order dated 31.10.2019 came to be passed which was forwarded to the Railway Board's for imposing of penalty which was received by the Railway Board's on 06.11.2019. The penalty order was issued by the Railway Board's on 26.11.2019 and which was received by the applicant on 27.11.2019. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the order of the Tribunal was communicated on 21.02.2019. Thereafter the respondents sat over the filed and did not act upon the Order by which 03 months from the date of communication of the order lapsed and therefore despite the application for extension for time not being acceded to, the respondents exceeded the jurisdiction by passing the major penalty order thereby imposing the penalty and hence the O.A.
8. Opposing the grant of relief, Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the averment contained in the counter affidavit as well as justifying the decision taken by the Competent Authority in imposing the major penalty i.e. Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
9 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 reduction to lower stage in the time scale (level) of pay by two (02) stages for a period of six (06) months without cumulative effect on the applicant.
9. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the reason assigned is as under:
That the applicant while working as Chairman/ Railway Recruitment Cell/Kolkata was issued a major penalty charge sheet by General Manager/ER on 02.03.17 (Memorandum no. SP.273/D&A/AR dated 02.03.2017) for being held responsible for leakage of question papers of recruitment exam of Group D staff on Indian Railways vide notification no. 0113 published by RRC/Kolkata, which ultimately compelled Railway Administration to conduct re-examination by incurring additional expenditure of Rs 5,97,05,909/-. This has seriously created adverse impression on the credibility of the recruitment process on Indian Railways.
That the charges leveled against him were established upon enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of Reduction to lower stage in the time scale (level) of pay by two (02) stages for a period of six(06) months without cumulative effect on Sri Anjan Ray, the then Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/Gaz./Eastern Railway vide Railway Board's letter no. E(O)1-2018/PU-
2/ER/02 dated 26.11.2019. The said penalty order was received by Sri Anjan Ray on 27.11.2019.Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
10 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 That earlier, the applicant has filed OA No. 1146 of 2017 before Hon'ble CAT/Kolkata praying for direction upon the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel and/or revoke the charge-sheet dated 2.3.2017 and to stop the inquiry proceeding till the disposal of the OA mainly on the grounds that the issuance of charge-sheet and the appointment of inquiry officer for conducting the enquiry by the respondents are bad in law in the eye of law and in violation of provisions of Rule (9) of the Railway Servants (Discipline 8& Appeal) Rules, 1968.
That Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench disposed of the said OA on 31.01.2019 with a direction upon the respondent authorities to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the applicant vide charge memo dated 02.03.2017, as per rules, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the said order dated 31.01.2019, Ld. Tribunal also stated the following :-
That "the applicant shall be at liberty to agitate appropriately, if aggrieved with the final order passed by the authority concerned, in the proceedings."
That "it is made clear that we have not gone in to the merits. of the OA, and therefore all the points shall remain open for the respondent authorities to consider the matter appropriately as per Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 relevant rules and regulations governing the filed, and in accordance with law."
That it was made clear by the Tribunal, that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant should be finalised following all extant rules and procedures and in accordance with law.
That the respondents apprehended that the disciplinary case against the applicant cannot be finalised within the timeframe allowed by CAT in order dated 31.01.2019 after observing all the laid down procedures as per extant rules in accordance with law and accordingly, Railway authority filed one MA (MA No. 475/2019) praying for extending the time limit by six months, which was ultimately pronounced as infructuous by Tribunal vide its order dated 29.11.2019.
It is to mention that the punishment notice/penalty order dated 26.11.2019 was served to the applicant, Sri Anjan Ray on 27.11.19.
That the applicant accepted the order of penalty dated 26.11.2019 passed by the competent authority (Railway Board) on 27.11.2019. The applicant did not challenge punishment order before CAT/Kolkata or as regards the non-adherence to stipulated time limit set by CAT for concluding the disciplinary case against the applicant. Also, from the available records, it is Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 averred that he did not submit any appeal to the Appellate Authority (i,e.
President) against the penalty order dated 26.11.2019, as per provisions of Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
That it is pertinent to mention that the applicant (otherwise the Charged Official) has submitted his defence brief on 03.06.2019 and thereafter to complete procedural work before remitting the case file to Railway Board some time was taken by this Railway which this Court may graciously consider and condone the time taken to finalise the disciplinary case against the applicant. However, the applicant has never represented in this regard either before higher Railway authority or before any judicial forum.
That after a lapse of 02 years, the applicant has filed this OA praying to set aside the disciplinary proceedings and penalty order issued to him, as Railway Administration could not finalise the case within stipulated time frame, which itself is absolutely bad in law and in contravention to the Rule 21 of AT Act, 1985.
Moreover, that applicant did not raise any objection or filed any petition before any judicial forum during the operative period of the penalty which was from 26.11.2019 to 25.05.2020 or when his junior Sri K.P. Singh, IRPS was appointed to officiate in Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade). Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 That it is only after he had served the penalty and consequently appointed to Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade) in the year 2020, he filed this OA with malafide intention to misguide this Tribunal.
10. It is also submitted that M.A. seeking condonation of delay has been preferred that seeking condonation of delay in setting aside the Order of disciplinary proceedings about jurisdiction for the reasons mentioned is due to Corona period.
11. The Original records has been seen and returned to the respondents.
12. ANALYSIS:
12.1 We have heard counsels for the respective parties and perused the records. We would analyse the case in the light of factual matrix highlighted above.
12.2 First, on the aspect of the MA seeking condonation of delay. The reasons for delay had been assigned in the pleadings inter alia to the effect that:
"6. Your applicant that in March 2020 the country wide pandemic Covid 19 broke out endangering the life of people at large and at the same time jeopardising the livelihood of common people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other quasi proceedings within a period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and State) due to outbreak of the Covid 19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 28.02.2022 notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the Court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
The same has been vehemently opposed by the respondents contending that the applicant accepted the order of penalty dated 26.11.2019 passed by the competent authority (Railway Board) on 27.11.2019. The applicant did not challenge the punishment order before CAT, Kolkata Bench or as regards the non-adherence to stipulated time limit set by CAT for concluding the disciplinary case against the applicant. Also, from the available records, it is averred that he did not submit any appeal to the Appellate Authority (i.e. the Hon'ble President) against the penalty order dated 26.11.2019, as per provisions of Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The applicant (otherwise the Charged Official) has submitted his defence brief on 03.06.2019 and thereafter completed procedural work. Before remitting the case file to Railway Board, some time was taken by this Railway which this Court may graciously consider and condone the time taken to finalise the disciplinary case Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 against the applicant. However, the applicant has never represented in this regard either before the higher Railway authority or before any judicial forum.
That after a lapse of 02 years, the applicant has filed this OA praying to set aside the disciplinary proceedings and penalty order issued to him, as Railway Administration could not finalise the case within the stipulated time frame, which itself is absolutely bad in law and is in contravention to the Rule 21 of AT Act, 1985. Moreover, that applicant did not raise any objection or file any petition before any judicial forum during the operative period of the penalty which was from 26.11.2019 to 25.05.2020 or when his junior Sri K.P. Singh, IRPS was appointed to officiate in Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade). That it is only after he had served the penalty order and consequently appointed to Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade) in the year 2020, he filed this OA with a malafide intention to misguide this Tribunal.
12.3 Taking note of the above facts, we draw a reference to decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8435 - 8436 OF 2024 (@ S. L. P. (CIVIL) Nos. 2733-2734 of 2024) MOOL CHANDRA VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. decided on 05.08.2024, reading thus:-
"19. Being aggrieved, appellant challenged the same in O.A. No.3034 of 2018. However, the counsel appearing for the appellant is said to have withdrawn the said O.A. On the one hand appellant claims that he had not authorized his counsel to withdraw the O.A. No.3034 of 2018 and on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 submitted that OA had been withdrawn by the appellant through his counsel without prejudice to the right of the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. This oath against oath cannot be tested in absence of any proof. The fact remains that there was no memo duly signed by the appellant came to be filed for withdrawal of the application before the Tribunal.
20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned.
However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.
21. In this background when we turn our attention to the facts on hand, it would emerge from the records that appellant being aggrieved by the dismissal of the O.A. No.2066 of 2020 on the ground of delay had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the same. The High Court on the ground of penalty imposed being a minor penalty, refused to entertain the writ petition or in other words confirmed the order impugned before the Tribunal on merits. This Court in Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another reported in 2009 (3) SCC 525 has taken a view that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. It has been further held:-
"5. While deciding an application for condonation of delay, it is well settled that the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and would have only seen whether sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it. We ourselves have also examined the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the High Court and, in our opinion, the delay of 178 days has been properly explained by the appellant. That being the position, we Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 set aside the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal filed before the High Court is restored to its original file.
The High Court is requested to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order."
22. If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone the delay. This Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 48 has held:
"6. Incidentally this point of delay and laches was also raised before the High Court and on this score the High Court relying upon the decision in Abhyankar case (N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India [(1995) 1 Mah LJ 503] ) observed that it is not an inflexible rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must and necessarily refuse to entertain the petition filed after a period of three years or more which is the normal period of limitation for filing a suit. The Bombay High Court in Abhyankar case [(1995) 1 Mah LJ 503] stated that the question is one of discretion to be followed in the facts and circumstances of each case and further stated:
"The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the writ court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay."
23. Applying the aforesaid principles which we are in complete agreement to the facts on hand and test the same it would not detain us for too long to set aside the impugned orders, in as much as the delay of 425 days in filing fresh O.A. No.2066 of 2020 has been succinctly explained by the appellant before the Tribunal, namely, it has been contended that there was no intimation of withdrawal of the earlier OA by his counsel and the order of withdrawal dated 10.08.2018 does not Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 reflect that such withdrawal was based on any memo duly signed by the appellant. Further, The High Court has proceeded to confirm the order of the Tribunal on the footing that penalty imposed on appellant is only a minor penalty namely withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, by completely ignoring the fact that in the earlier round of litigation it had been clearly held that punishment of dismissal imposed on the appellant was totally disproportionate to the alleged act.
24. In the normal circumstances we would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal or High Court or to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the matter but we desist from doing so for reasons more than one firstly, the age of the appellant is 68 years (as on date);
and, secondly, there being no evidence whatsoever available on record to arrive at a conclusion that appellant is guilty of the charge; Thirdly, the complainant herself had withdrawn the complaint made and she was not even examined on behalf of the employer to prove the charge. Thus, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination as it is contrary to the facts and records on hand. There cannot be judicial review of nature of penalty to be imposed by disciplinary authority. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and hold that appellant is entitled for all consequential benefits flowing from the setting aside of the orders of penalty and respondents are directed to take steps in this regard expeditiously and at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs."
12.4 In present as well considering the ratio as above, we are therefore of the view that for the reasons mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay duly supported by affidavit, needs to be allowed. 12.5 Now coming to the merits of present case, in CIVIL APPEAL No. 10590 OF 2024 AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. decided on 01.04.2025:
"17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. However, in the Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings.
18. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of this court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another4, wherein the court noted that there was no reason to interfere with the quashing as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 12 years of delay. A reference should also be made to the decision of this Court in P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board5, where it has been reiterated that continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee for the mistakes committed by the department in initiating disciplinary proceedings. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the Impugned Judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and consequently the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge stands restored. "
12.6 Further in CIVIL APPEAL NO.5497 OF 2025 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 9818/2017] MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS decided on 23.04.2025, it has been held that :-
"Under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a party fails to produce evidence that is within its control, it is presumed that the withheld evidence would be unfavourable to it. Though reference to any authority is not required, we may profitably refer to the decision in State (Inspector of Police) v. Surya Sankaram Karri in this behalf.Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 We do not consider that the Inquiry Officer was justified in the approach he adopted while conducting the inquiry. Findings had to be returned by him neither on his ipse dixit nor surmises and conjectures but on the basis of legal evidence. A Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon'ble P.B. Gajendragadkar, J., in Union of India v. H.C. Goel pointed out that in carrying out the purpose of rooting out corruption, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. Although technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care should be taken to see that the innocent is not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under statutory rules. This has, thus, been the well-settled position of law for decades and bearing such law in mind, we have no hesitation to hold that the reason for which the Inquiry Officer doubted the version of PW- 2 in his cross-examination was not available to be assigned without first returning a finding attributing the fault for the delay to the appellant.
At this juncture, it is imperative to further underline that the chargesheet against the appellant was issued based on the written complaint of the informant. Law is again clear to the effect that mere production of a document does not constitute proof. If chargesheet is issued on the basis of a written complaint, the author/complainant has to be produced. The decision of this Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen & Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 617 is an authority for this proposition. Notably, in the instant case, the informant/complainant had not been examined. This, we hold is one other glaring error in the decision-making process. Upon reviewing the materials at our disposal and considering the aforementioned anomalies in the issuance of the chargesheet and the procedural lapses, none of which can be attributed to the appellant, and in light of the absence of the departmental file pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, we are compelled to conclude beyond any cavil of doubt that due process was not followed in dismissing the appellant from service, rendering the dismissal unjustified. "
(emphasis) Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 12.7 Interestingly in the present matter, we find that the inquiry report and record of the document of inquiry proceedings were forwarded to GM Vigilance vide letter dated 09.04.2014 for obtaining second stage advice. The concerned advocate of the Railway was instructed to file an M.A. seeking 06 months' time for completion of disciplinary proceedings. The said being M.A. 475 of 2019 seeking extension of time for controlling department proceedings came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2019 which is reproduced below:
"Ld. counsel for both the parties are present. MA filed by the respondents for extension of time is not maintainable since it has been filed beyond the time limit. Accordingly, MA has become infructuous."
12.8 On 31.01.2019, the earlier OA was disposed of with directions to conclude the enquiry proceedings within three months. The said order was accepted by both parties. The M.A. for extension of time came to be filed after expiry of three months' time. It is only after dismissal of the M.A. for extension of time and DE Order dated 31.10.2019 came to be passed which was forwarded to the Railway Board for imposing penalty which was received by the Railway Board on 06.11.2019. The penalty order was issued by the Railway Board on 26.11.2019 and was received by the applicant on 27.11.2019. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the order of the Tribunal Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 was communicated on 21.02.2019. Thereafter the respondents sat over the file and did not act upon the Order by which 03 months' time from the date of communication of the order lapsed and, therefore, despite the application for extension of time was not acceded to, the respondents exceeded the jurisdiction by passing the major penalty order thereby imposing the penalty.
12.9 We observe that there is procedural flaw of delay in initiating departmental action right from the stage of initiation of departmental proceedings and thereafter, not concluding the same within the time stipulated i.e. three months from the date of passing the Order. The Order in M.A. 475 of 2019 for extension of time for concluding department proceedings came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2019, which was preferred beyond the prescribed period. The respondents had not been vigilant enough in taking action in a time bound manner. Even, the dismissal order qua M.A. 475 of 2019 seeking extension of time, no appeal was preferred. Despite the said facts, the respondent continued with the departmental action thus over reaching the judicial order(s) passed by the Tribunal. We are fortified with the observations made by the Madras High Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 17931 of 2014, which reads as under:
"31. The disciplinary proceedings in this case commenced by issuing a charge memo on 23 October 2008. The first respondent has taken about three years even to complete the enquiry. The petitioner submitted her Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 23 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 explanation to the second show cause notice as early as on 9 June 2011. Even thereafter swift action was not taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner after submitting the representation to the second show cause notice waited for a period of two years and then filed W.P.No.9547 of 2013 challenging the charge memo once again. Even after fixing cut off date by the learned Judge, the Government machinery failed to move. It was only under such circumstances the petitioner has come up with this writ petition to put an end to the disciplinary proceedings."
12.10 A reply dated 06.07.2021 passed by Deputy Secretary Establishment (Special), Railway Board , read as under:-
"We find that same is cryptic and non-speaking one. The delay in giving effect to the order(s) of the Tribunal are not attributable to the applicant thus the respondents in slumber(s) they cannot be allowed to act to her prejudice. It is rather unfortunate that if the allegations were of serious nature a swift action was required to be taken by concerned authorities. No responsibility has been fixed against any official for delay departmental action till date.
13. CONCLUSION In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that disciplinary proceedings had continued beyond the time frame prescribed by this Tribunal particularly when the Tribunal had rejected the application for extension of time to continue the disciplinary proceedings. We therefore, quash and set aside the order of penalty which had culminated as a result of continuance of the disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as the said disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in violation of the order passed by the Tribunal. We also set Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 24 o.a. 100 of 2022 with m.a. 255 of 2022 aside the reply dated 06.07.2021 passed by Deputy Secretary Establishment (Special), Railway Board. The respondents are directed to restore consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of three months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. No Costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
drh
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8d ad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b Hansda 777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 12:34:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0