Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
G Venkatalakshmi vs M/O Railways on 24 March, 2023
lof il OA 310/00085/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00085/2015 DATED THIS 2 Ub THE/JIDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T. JACOB, MEMBER(A) HON'BLE SMT. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J) G. Venkatalakshmi, Ex-Peon/CCM/O/MAS/S. Rly, 3 No.9, Pandian Street, Ram Nagar, Urappakkam. .. Applicant (By Advocate: M/s. Ratio Legis) Vs 1. The Union of India Rep. The Member Traffic, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi; 2. The Addl. General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003; s) 3. The Chief Commercial Manager (PSP Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003, .. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. A. Abdul Ajees) 2 of 11 OA 310/00085/2015 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act seeking the following reliefs:
"to call for the records related to the impugned orders in No.1. No. C 415/VI/DAR/SF5/GV dated 15.05.12 2, No. P(A) 86/2012/545 dated 05.12.12 and
3. No. C- 415/VI/DAR/SF5/GV_ dated 28.05.14 (communicated on 17.06.14) passed by the 3 , 2™ and I" respondents respectively and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to do the necessary to arrange to reinstate the applicant and to pay the consequential benefits both service and pecuniary and to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant in nutshell is as under:-
The applicant contended that she had submitted her application for appointment as Substitute Bungalow Luskar duly enclosing her School Transfer Certificate and, based upon the said document, after verification, she was engaged as substitute Bungalow Luskar to Shri Thomos Varghese, the then General Manger of Southern Railway in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2550-3200 with effect from 18.08.2005. On completion of 120 days continuous service from the date of her initial engagement, she was granted with temporary status in the same scale of pay Rs. 2550-3200/-
with effect from 16.12.2005. Then on transfer from the General Branch,
3 of 1! OA 310/00085/2015 she was taken into the rolls of Headquarters Commercial Branch as s Substitute Office Peon in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 (in 5 CPC scales) with effect from 24.07.2007. While working as such, she was regularized on completion of three years on 17.08.2008 and continued in the same post and while working as such, was issued with major penalty charge memorandum dated 31.03.2011 with the following charges:-
"Smt. G. Venkatalakshmi, working as Peon, CCM/O/MAS (P.F. No. 95400028) had committed misconduct, in that in order to seek appointment in Southern Railway during 2005 as 2™ substitute Bungalow Peon to former GM/s. Rly, she had submitted bogus Transfer Certificate bearing No. 394 purported to have been issued by Jagadhambal Subramaniam Govt. Higher Secondary School, Pazhaverkadu 601 205 (original name of the school).
Thus Smt. G. Venkatalakshmi, working as Peon, CCM/O/MAS has failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966,"
Preliminary investigation report has been submitted and regular inquiry was ordered by the appointing authority. In the said inquiry, the applicant has extended her full cooperation, however, in the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the applicant is guilty for the said charges and he submitted his report and, accordingly, the penalty advise has been issued.
Subsequent to an appeal, the same has been confirmed by the Appellate CJ 4of 11 OA 316/00085/2015 Authority and, again the revision, the Revisional Authority has also confirmed the penalty advise. Challenge has been made by the applicant on the ground that the said orders of penalty passed by the authority is not competent and without adhering to the mandatory rules in the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and other supplementary instructions issued by the Railway Board, the said removal order has been passed. As the Disciplinary Authority is not competent to pass the said order, thereby, the same has been vitiated hence it needs interference of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Being aggrieved with the said orders of the respondent authorities, the applicant has present this O.A. seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondent have appeared through their counsel, filed a detailed reply and that admitted the facts in respect of the applicant's appointment. However, in respect of the action, it is contended that when the routine preventive checks as done by the Railway Vigilance Department had conducted investigation into the genuineness of the School Certificate submitted by the applicant at the time of her appointment. That the investigation has revealed that the applicant has | produced bogus School Transfer Certificate No. 394, purported to have issued by the Jaghadhambal, Government Higher Secondary School, Pazheverkadu-601 204, as a proof for educational qualification, Community Status and date of birth (i.e. age proof) and got appointment 5 of 11 OA 310/00085/2015 in the Southern Railway as Substitute Bungalow Peon. The Investigation revealed that there was no such school by the name "Jaghadhambal Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhverkadu- 601 204 available in Pazhverkadu and in fact there is another school by name "Jagadhambal Subramaniam Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhverkadu with PIN Code No. 601 205. |
4. As part of fact-finding inquiry, the Vigilance Department verified the genuineness of the School Transfer Certificate No. 394 with the Headmaster of the said school and, upon confirmation that the said certificate is not correct one, that inquiry has been initiated by giving all the reasonable opportunities to defend the charge memorandum. The respondents followed the due process as per the law and thereby after report of the inquiry officer, the competent authority has passed the said order of removal from the service with immediate effect. The respondents reiterated that the order passed by the authority dated 15.05.2012 that penalty advise has been issued by the competent authority only.3, The applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India & Anr. In Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021. Therefore, the O.A. being devoid in merits, they prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. The applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India & Anr. In Civil Appeal 6 of 11 OA 310/00085/2015 No. 7764 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021.
6. The respondents have also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 2313 of 2003 in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi vs. Union of India & Anr. Dated 13.03.2003.
7. Heard M/s. Ratio Legis, Learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Ajees, Learned counsel for the respondents.
8. It is to be noted that as facts in respect of appointment of the applicant is not in dispute. The applicant had submitted her application for appointment as Substitute Bungalow Lascar duly enclosing her School Transfer Certificate and based on which she was engaged as a Substitute Bungalow Lascar to Shri Thomas Varghese, the then General Manager of Southern Railway in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2550-3200 with effect from 18.08.2005. On completion of 120 days continuous service from the date of her initial engagement she was granted with temporary status in the same scale of pay Rs. 2550-3200 with effect fro 16.12.2005. Then on transfer from General Branch she was taken into rolls of Headquarters Commercial Branch as Substitute Office Peon in scale of Rs. 2550-3200 (in 5" CPC scales) with effect from 24.07.2007. That as part of routine preventive checks Railway Vigilance Department had conducted an investigation into the genuineness of the School Certificates submitted by the applicant at the time of her appointment. The investigation revealed that the applicant has produced bogus School Transfer Certificate Higher 7ofil OA 310/00085/2015 Secondary School, Pazhverkadu, 601 204, as a proof for educational qualification, Community status and date of birth ( ie age proof) and got appointment in Southern Railway as substitute Bungalow Peon. The investigation revealed that there was no such school by name "Jaghadhambla Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhverkadu- 601 204" available in Pazhverkadu. In fact there is another school by name JagadhambalSuburamaniam Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhverkadu" with PIN Code No. 601 205. As a part of fact finding inquiry, the Vigilance Department verified the genuineness of the School Transfer Certificate No. 394 with the "JagadhambalSubramaniam Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhverkadu with PIN Code 601 205 which is available in Pazhaverkadu. The Head Master of JagadhambalSubramaniam Government Higher Secondary School, Pazhverkadu verified the Transfer Certificate with her school records and intimated the Vigilance department that the certificate is not a correct one and also he made an endorsement in the top of the Transfer Certificate No. 394 with the following words "verified and found not correct." The applicant has participated in the inquiry and there is no allegation over that she has not been given any opportunity. Even after the penalty advise dated 15.5.2012, she has submitted her appeal dated 28.06.2012 wherein her stand was there that she had rendered her service with sanctification to the superiors and no complaint was made against her in respect of her C) 8 of 11 OA 310/00085/2015 services, therefore, she prayed mercy. Since her husband was working as a Coolie worker and now a patient with permanent disability. Her son and daughter are studying in collage and school respectively, she has to support her family to provide financial assistance and, therefore, she has requested for reinstatement. After considering all the aspects, her appeal has been rejected by order dated 5.12.2012 by the Appellate Authority. Against which, she has submitted a Revision Petition dated 14.01.2013 wherein she has submitted that documents which is submitted for getting appointment was obtained and submitted by her husband, she is not aware about the minimum eligibility qualification for appointment at that time and at the same time, it has been verified by the authorities and again prayed mercy and sympathetic consideration. Same has also considered by the Revisional Authority and confirmed the order passed by authorities below by order dated 28.05.2014 and the same has been communicated by letter dated 17.6.2014.
9. It is to be noted that when routine preventive checks Railway Vigilance department has conducted the investigation into the genuineness of the school certificate submitted by the applicant at the time of appointment, it reveals that the said false certificate has been submitted to seek appointment. After fact finding authority, the vigilance department verified the genuineness of the School Transfer Certificate submitted by the applicant, when the report has been confirmed that the said certificate Sof 11 OA 310/00085/2015 is found not correct, a charge memorandum dated 31.03.2011 was issued alleging that her act of submission of bogus school transfer certificate for securing employment in Railways amounts to contravention of Rule 3(1)
(i) and Gii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and she was given all reasonable opportunities to defend herself. The applicant has acknowledged the said memorandum and submitted her explanation on 18.04.2011, having not satisfied with the said explanation, the disciplinary authority has nominated inquiry officer and inquiry has been conducted. Accordingly report has been submitted that the charges were proved against the applicant and thereby the competent authority has passed the order of that 'removal from service'.
10. It is be noted that as the allegations levelled against the applicant that the penalty order issued by.the authority is not competent as per the rules, to verify the said allegation, we have perused the relevant circulars, in that we found that as notified on 19.01.2011 Schedule -II (column 7) that Additional General Managers in relation to Departments attached them or Chief Administrative Officers or General Managers; for all classes of non-gazetted staff, can impose penalties specified in clause (1) to (vi) and suspension as well as note upholding that Note 1, An Appointing Authority or an authority of equivalent rank or any higher authority shall be competent to impose the penalties specified in clause (vii), (viii) and
(ix) of Rule 6.
() 10 of 11 OA 310/00085/2015 li. It also is to be noted that an extract of Rule 2(c) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 which furnishes the definition of "Disciplinary Authority", is reproduced below:-
"2 (c )'disciplinary authority means-
1, In relation to the imposition of a penalty on a Railway servant, the authority competent, under these rules, to impose on him that penalty;
ii. In relation to Rule 9 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 in the case of any Gazetted Railway Servant, an authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6;
lit, In relation to Rule 9 in the case of any non-
gazetted railway servant, an authority competent to impose any of the major penalites specified in Rule 6;
iv. In relation to clauses (a) and (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 11, in the case of a non-gazetted railway servant, an authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6."
12, Upon perusal of the rule position that it is clearly established that the disciplinary proceedings was initiated by the competent authority, While considering the evidence on record along with Inquiry Officer's report and Defence Statement submitted by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the gravity of offence warrants still higher penalty, therefore, he has forwarded the entire case to the competent authority viz., Chief Commercial Manager/Passenger Service"
acts as Disciplinary Authority at the time of imposting penalty the applicant was working under the commercial department i.e. competent
11 of 11 OA 310/00085/2015 authority is Chief Commercial Manager/Passenger service, therefore, the allegations made by the applicant that the penalty advise order passed by the authorities is not competent is not correct. Hence we found that the there is no violation of any rules or procedure. Since the Chief Commercial Manager/ Passenger Service imposed penalty in the capacity of the disciplinary authority, Additional General Manager, the next higher authority, considered the appeal and then Revision petition was considered by Member Traffic representing Railway Board who is next higher authority according to the rules.
13. It is to be noted the allegation of the applicant in respect of submitting bogus School Transfer Certificate and seeking the job is a "serious in nature". The action which is taken by the respondents after following due process of law, we do not find any fault, therefore, in our considered opinion no interference is called for. The judgement which is relied upon by the applicant is not applicable in the present case. O.A. needs to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
}