Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Lallu vs M/O Railways on 30 April, 2025
1
OA No. 426/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 426/2016
Order reserved on : 08.04.2025
Date of order: 30.04.2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Lallu Son of Shri Babu, aged about 31 years, resident of
Village Kheda Thakur, Post Rudawal, Tehsil Roopbass,
District Bharatpur. Last employed as Gangman / Trackman,
Unit No. 4, Bansi Paharpur, under Senior Section Engineer
(Public Way), Id-gah, North Central Railway, Agra. Gr 'A'
...Applicant
(By Adv: Shri C.B. Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Central
Zone, North Central Railway, Allahabad (U.P.).
2. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Central Railway,
Agra Division, Agra (U.P.).
3. Sr. Divisional Engineer-II, North Central Railway, Agra
Division, Agra (U.P.).
4. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Line), North Central
Railway, Id-gah, Agra. (U.P.).
5. Senior Section Engineer (Public Way), North Central
Railway, Id-gah, Agra (U.P.).
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri Manish Kumar Sharma)
2
OA No. 426/2016
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
This Original Application is made against Appellate order dated 06.05.2016 of the Senior Divisional Engineer (Sr.D.E.)-II, North Central Railway (N.C.R.), the concerned Appellate Authority (A.A.) (Respondent No 3), by which the appeal dated 16.07.2013 of the Applicant - preferred against the order of punishment dated 10.06.2013 of the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.), the Respondent No.4, for removal from Railway Service with immediate effect and without any pensionary benefit - had been rejected.
2. Based on the pleadings of the parties before this Tribunal, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant, son of one Babu and belonging to Village Kheda Thakur, Post Rudawal, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur, had previously worked as Coolie at Agra Fort Railway Station, upon the Coolie Badge No.51 being transferred to him. The said transfer was recommended by Smt. Janni - the widow of a deceased Coolie, one Manohari son of Sanwaliya, resident of Village Mandi Mirza Khan - on the ground that the Applicant was her brother and thus a nearest relative - in terms of the Railway Board policy in connection with transfer of Badges to nearest relatives (i.e. Brother or Brother's son or wife's brother) on the death of any Coolie. The transfer of Badge No.1 was eventually allowed by the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 10.08.2007. Subsequently, the Railway Board had vide R.B.E. No.50/2008 3 OA No. 426/2016 dated 01.04.2008 decided as a one-time measure for appointment of licensed porters to the post of Gangman. Following his temporary appointment as Gangman vide Letter dated 30.05.2008 of the Divisional Rail Manager (D.R.M.) (Pers.) Agra Division, N.C.R., the Applicant was allowed posting as Gangman vide order dated 05.06.2008 of the Respondent No.4.
3. Later, a major-penalty chargesheet dated 06.09.2010 under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules-1968 came to be served on the Applicant on the charge that he had got the Coolie Badge No.51 of the deceased Coolie, one Manohari, transferred to himself by furnishing incorrect facts - since during a check conducted, it had been found that Smt. Janni was neither the sister of the Applicant nor was she the wife of the deceased Coolie, one Manohari. The said proceedings had culminated in the Order dated 10.06.2013 of the D.A., vide which the penalty of removal from Railway Service, with immediate effect and without any pensionary benefit, had been imposed upon the Applicant. The Applicant had then furnished an appeal dated 16.07.2013 before the A.A. (Respondent No.3), which had been disposed of vide the impugned Order dated 06.05.2016 whereby the appeal of the Applicant was disposed of by retaining the punishment imposed by the D.A., while advising that the revision petition against the said appellate Order could be made as per the provisions of the Rule-25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules-1968 to the D.R.M., N.C.R. Agra Division (i.e. the Revising Authority).
4OA No. 426/2016
4. Vide the present O.A., the Applicant had sought to challenge the actions/decisions in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him pursuant to the charge-Memo dated 06.09.2010 issued by the D.A. against him, at the stage of inquiry culminating in the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 24.12.2012, imposition of punishment by the D.A. vide Order dated 10.06.2013 and in issuing the Appellate Order dated 06.05.2016 by the A.A. As regards the inquiry proceedings conducted by the I.O., the Applicant had sought to challenge those by submitting inter alia - that while Hindi version of charge Memo dated 06.09.2010 and copies of the documents listed therein had been provided to him, but documents asked for by him were either denied or provided late/after repeated requests ; that though the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) and Presenting Officer (P.O.) were appointed on 13.01.2011, the inquiry was commenced only preminarily on 04.03.11 and the Defence Assistant was allowed to him on 09.05.2011 ; that the enquiry proceedings were frequently postponed on various pretexts ; that the Defence witness, one S.K. Khan, had testified to the report dated 20.10.2009 of the Divisional Commercial Manager (D.C.M.) despite that report not being related to him ; and that when the I.O.'s Report dated 24.12.2012, that was finalized after obtaining the brief of the P.O. submitted on 09.10.2012 and the Defence brief submitted on 21.11.2012, was shared vide Letter dated 21.02.2013 of the D.A. with the Applicant , he had represented on 18.03.2013 to the D.A. pointing out the various omissions and commissions of the 5 OA No. 426/2016 I.O. in conducting the related inquiry that had hindered the Applicant's defence.
5. Further, the Applicant had also sought to challenge vide the present O.A. the actions/decisions of the D.A. on the ground that he had ignored the lacunae in the conduct of Inquiry by the I.O. as had been represented against by the Applicant ; and that it had relied upon the investigation report of the D.C.M. rather than the I.O.'s Report ; and that the D.A. had allegedly not applied his own mind, but acted as per directions of the Vigilance Branch while finalizing his decision vide punishment Order dated 10.06.2013. Moreover, it was sought to be presented by the Applicant that his appeal dated 16.07.2013 against the impugned punishment Order dated 10.06.2013 of the D.A. was kept pending unduly before being disposed on the directions of this Tribunal vide Order dated 03.02.2015 in the O.A. No.068/2015 eventually vide the impugned appellate Order dated 06.05.2016. It was the case of the Applicant that in doing so, the due procedure had not been followed and the appellate Order was made by relying upon the documents of the preliminary inquiry dated 20.10.2009 conducted by the D.C.M. that was not testified to by its author.
6. Based on the various grounds and contentions as summarized herein above, the Applicant had prayed for the substantive reliefs vide the present O.A., inter alia - for directions to the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant in Railway Service on the post of Gangman/Trackman by quashing the appellate Order dated 06.05.2016 of the A.A. along with the punishment 6 OA No. 426/2016 Order dated 10.06.2013 of the D.A. with all consequential benefits ; and for quashing and setting aside the charge-Memo dated 06.09.2010 along with the related enquiry proceedings.
7. Per contra, vide their Reply, the Respondents had denied the contentions of the Applicant, other than the matters of fact on record. It had been averred that the Applicant had failed to prove that Smt. Janni was the widow of deceased Coolie, one Manohari, and further that she was the Applicant's real sister. In respect of the conditions of the engagement/appointment of the Applicant, it had been submitted that vide the Letter dated 10.08.2007 permitting for transfer of Badge No.51 of deceased Coolie, one Manohari, to the Applicant - it had specifically mentioned that if the statement of Smt, Janni the widow of deceased Coolie one Manohari, son of Sanwaliya, was found to be false, then the Badge No.51 issued to the Applicant would be taken back. Moreover, the Letter dated 05.06.2008 for posting of the Applicant upon temporary appointment as Gangman had also specifically provided that in case any of the documents provided by him were found to be false, he would be removed from Railway Service with immediate effect. Therefore, when during the check conducted for establishment/authentication of the claim of the Applicant as a licensed porter, it had emerged at variance from the documents presented previously by the Applicant - inter alia that Smt. Janni, resident of Village Kheda Thakur was married to one Munir Khan of Village Mandi Mirza Khan ; and that there never was any resident by the name of Manohari, son of Sanwaliya, in the Village Mandi Mirza Khan - the Applicant was 7 OA No. 426/2016 served with the charge memorandum dated 06.09.2010 under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal)M Rules, 1968.
8. It was further submitted by the Respondents that the Applicant was afforded ample opportunities during the course of the related disciplinary proceedings ; and despite those, he had failed to prove to the satisfaction of the competent D.A. the correctness of his previous claims, which were relied upon to allow transfer of Coolie Badge No.51 to him and later towards his temporary appointment as Gangman. Thus, the Applicant not being an eligible Coolie itself - who could consequently be considered validly entitled to be appointed as Gangman/Trackman
- was not found to be justly or legally having any right to be appointed as Gangman/Trackman under the Respondent Organization. Hence, the Respondents had also contended that the D.A.'s Order dated 10.06.2013 - holding the Applicant guilty of the charge of furnishing incorrect/forged documents ; and the consequential passing of order of penalty of removal from Railway Service with immediate effect and without pensionary benefits - cannot be said to be illegal. It was also averred that even in the course of appeal dated 16.07.2013 preferred by the Applicant, he had failed to bring any new convincing evidence/document. Therefore, the Respondents had averred that the O.A. was devoid of substance and deserved to be dismissed.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties in the case and the related documents presented before us ; and also heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties. 8 OA No. 426/2016 Before examining the merits of the case, it was noticed that the Applicant had filed this O.A. on 09.06.2016 against the appellate Order dated 06.05.2016 of the A.A. However it was also noted importantly that the Applicant, who had been proceeded against in the disciplinary proceedings under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 had approached this Tribunal without availing the opportunity for Revision as per the provisions under the said Rules, as had been also advised vide the Appellate Order dated 06.05.2016 referred to herein.
10. In this regard, the legal provision as provided in Section-20 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was relevant and upon reference, was found to read as follows :
" 20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted -
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances."
11. The availing of the other remedies as prescribed aforesaid is important also because in its absence, not all material and the reasons would emerge before this Tribunal, regarding the multiple procedural issues related to the inquiry and disciplinary proceedings that were raised by the Applicant vide the O.A. at hand ; based on which it may be determined whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied 9 OA No. 426/2016 and the proceedings conducted properly, the decision was just etc. Hence, we hold that the Applicant is required to first approach the competent Revising Authority with a suitable Revision Petition in respect of his grievance related to the Order the Order in appeal of the A.A. dated 06.05.2016 in his case against the Order of imposition of punishment by the D.A. We also direct that the duration for which this O.A. had been pending before this Tribunal from the date of its filing till the date of receiving a certified copy of this Order by the Applicant shall not be counted for determining the period of limitation, if any, for the purpose of filing of the said Review Petition.
12. Therefore, at this stage, without entering into merits, we also direct that the Revising Authority, if so approached by the Applicant within a period of 03 weeks from the date of this order, should dispose of the Revision Petition within a further period of six weeks thereafter, while addressing the specific grievances therein by a detailed and reasoned Order, with due reliance upon inter alia the related administrative documents and extant instructions/guidelines.
13. The Applicant shall be at liberty to approach this Tribunal, if so advised, after exhausting the other remedies available to him under the service rules for redressal of his grievance. 10 OA No. 426/2016
14. Accordingly, the present O.A. is disposed of with the foregoing directions and observations. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) !Vv