Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Shakrudeen Khan vs Union Of India : Through on 16 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 1420/2011 With O.A. No. 1443/2011 O.A. No. 1444/2011 O.A. No. 1445/2011 O.A. No. 1505/2011 O.A. No. 1506/2011 New Delhi, this the 16th day of December, 2011. HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER OA 1420/2011 Shri Shakrudeen Khan S/o Shri Ram Gafoor Khan Working as Substitute Khallasi Under Sr. Section Engineer, Tele/Exch. Northern Railway, New Delhi. ..Applicant OA No. 1443/2011 Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena S/o Shri Ram Sahai Meena Working as Substitute Khallasi Under Sr. Section Engineer, Tele/Exch. Northern Railway, New Delhi. ..Applicant OA No.1444/2011 Shri Virender Pal Singh S/o Shri Ram Vir Singh Working as Substitute Khallasi, Under Sr. Section Engineer, Tele/Exch. Northern Railway, New Delhi. ..Applicant OA No. 1445/2011 Shri Nissar Khan S/o Shri Alladin Khan Working as Substitute Khallasi Under Sr. Section Engineer, Tele/Exch. Northern Railway, New Delhi. Applicant OA No. 1505/2011 Shri Sharif Mohd S/o Shri Jahoor Khan Working as Substitute Khallasi Under Sr. Section Engineer, Tele/Exch. Northern Railway, New Delhi. Applicant OA No. 1506/2011 Shri Kailash Chand Berwa S/o Shri Prabhati Lal Working as Substitute Khallasi Under Sr. Section Engineer, Tele/Exch. Northern Railway, New Delhi. Applicant By Advocate: Shri Manjeet Singh Reen. Versus Union of India : Through 1. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Saba Rehman. ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) In all these OAs the relief sought is common. The facts are also common and counsel are also common, therefore, all these cases are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the purpose of narrating facts, we had taken OA 1420/2011 as the lead case.
2. Applicants have sought the following relief:
(i) direct the respondents to pass the formal orders dropping all the departmental proceedings against the applicant, as has been done in the case of similarly situated employees, i.e. Shri Abid Ali with all consequential benefits as have been granted to the similarly situated employees, i.e., Shri Abid Ali without any discrimination.
(ii) any other or further relief which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.
(iii) the cost of the proceedings may also be awarded in favour to the applicant.
3. The brief facts as stated by the counsel for the applicants are that on 03.03.1994, all the applicants were given charge-sheet on the following allegations:
The said Shri Shri Shakrudeen Khan S/o Shri Ram Gafoor Khan Designation Telecom Khallasi Working under CTI/Exch. New Delhi during the year 1990 committed serious misconduct in as such as that he with the connivance with Shri Jhelum Singh Designation Sr. Clerk, PWI/JHI under PWI/JHI and Shri Rattan Kumar, MCC under AEN/JHI obtained a Bogus Casual Labour Service certificate claimed to have rendered Casual Labour service for the following period under PWI/SRL/JHI whereas he never worked in the Railways for this period:
15.11.1985 to 14.3.1986 = 120 days He claimed this service and obtained employment as Sub. Telecom Khallasi on the basis of this forged and illegal casual labour service certificate.
4. Similar was the charge for all other applicants as well. The charge was proved in the enquiry, as a result of which, all the applicants were removed from service w.e.f. 23.05.2008 (page 44). Being aggrieved, applicants had filed appeal which too was rejected on 21.07.2008 (page 47) whereupon the applicants had further filed revision. The revisionary authority, vide order dated 08.04.2009, by taking a lenient view in the matter, modified the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement from service (page 48 at 48B).
5. At this stage, applicants had filed separate OAs challenging all the orders. All the OAs were taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 18.09.2009 in OA 1042/2009 and others (page 50) by passing the following order:
Resultantly, leaving other grounds open, we allow these OAs to the extent that the impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the applicants in service. They shall be entitled to consequences, as admissible in law. However, this shall not preclude the respondents, if so advised, to take up the proceedings from the stage of initiation of inquiry to be entrusted to an officer other than the officer from vigilance department. In that event, law shall take its own course. No costs.
6. The respondents carried the matter to the Honble High Court by challenging the aforesaid judgment by filing batch of Writ Petitions leading Writ Petition being No.13638/2009. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 20.05.2010 (page 62 at 79) as follows:
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons the order of the Tribunal dated 18th September, 2009 impugned by the petitioner is sustained to the extent of setting aside the punishment imposed on the respondents of compulsorily retiring them. However, the decision of the Tribunal dated 18th September, 2009 granting consequential benefits till the date of the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to take up the proceedings from the stage of initiation of enquiry by an enquiry officer other than the officer from the vigilance department in accordance with law and shall conclude the enquiry positively within six months considering the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondent shall be deemed to be reinstated from the date of the order of the Tribunal as a result of setting aside of earlier enquiry proceedings and on reinstatement from the date of the order of Tribunal they will also be entitled for benefits in accordance with law and rules and regulations. Considering the facts and circumstances it is clarified that the enquiry be concluded by the petitioner within six months and this time shall not be extended. The question of grant of wages and all the consequential benefits till the date of the order of the Tribunal dated 18th September, 2009 quashing the earlier enquiry and punishment imposed shall also be decided in the fresh enquiry by the petitioner. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. Parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.
7. It is submitted by the applicants that even though six months time was granted by the Honble High Court, no enquiry was initiated against the applicants within the stipulated period. It was made clear by the Honble High Court that no extension would be granted. It was on 24.08.2010, after the period of 6 months had expired that a notice was issued by the enquiry officer (page 85) calling upon the applicants to attend the enquiry. At this stage, applicants sought inspection of the documents relied upon but neither those documents were shown to the applicants nor the enquiry proceeded any further from that stage. In view of above, applicants had filed the present OA seeking the relief as quoted above.
8. Respondents have filed the short affidavit wherein neither they have controverted any of the averments made by the applicants nor have disputed the relief claimed by the applicants. On the contrary, they have stated as follows:
2. That the respondent submits that the result of screening has been withheld for want of post facto approval of GM. That vide letter dated 26.07.2011 a letter has been written by the Divisional Railway Manager (P) to the GM Railways to get post facto sanction from GM for regularizing the applicants initial appointment. A true copy of letter dated 26.07.2011 is annexed.
3. That after the decision of the GM Railways if need be then the respondent will file the detail reply if required.
9. When the matter was called out today, counsel for the applicant produced before us two letters, one is dated 11.11.2011 whereby the post facto approval for engagement of the persons working as CL after 03.01.1981 was accorded and 2nd order dated 14.11.2011 whereby the result of the Group D staff working in S & T Deptt. was declared. It is admitted by the counsel for the respondents that name of all the applicants before us figure in this letter. Both these letters are taken on record.
10. Since the main relief claimed by the applicants has already been granted by the respondents by issuing letter dated 14.11.2011 and the respondents have not proceeded with the enquiry, counsel for the respondents fairly stated that the departmental enquiry is deemed to have been dropped. In view of above, all these OAs have become infructuous. The same are accordingly disposed of in terms of the letters passed by the respondents themselves. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be kept in all the other OAs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/