Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Anil Singh vs Union Of India Through on 9 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.3883/2010 This the 9th day of August 2011 Honble Shri M. L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Shri Anil Singh s/o Shri Dalbir Singh Bungalow Khallasi Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway Shivaji Bridge, New Delhi ..Applicant (By Advocates: Shri B S Mainee and Ms. Meenu Mainee) Versus Union of India through 1. The General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi 2. The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Northern Railway Kashmere Gate, New Delhi 3. Shri Rakesh Yadav Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway Shivaji Bridge, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R L Dhawan O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
8.1 That the Honble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and direct Respondent No.3 to allow the Applicant to perform his duty as he had been performing for the last about 2= years.
8.2 That any other or further relief which the Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be awarded in favour of the Applicant.
8.3 That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the Applicant.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged as Bungalow Khallasi on 8.7.2008. Subsequently, he was granted the temporary status w.e.f. 5.11.2008. The case projected by the applicant is that he was deputed with Shri Rakesh Yadav (respondent No.3) to perform duty at his residence. The applicant had been performing duties, such as cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. for about 2= years in a satisfactory manner. However, he fell ill and was admitted in the Northern Railway Central Hospital where the operation was carried on 13.4.2010. The applicant was discharged from the said hospital on 1.5.2010 and after discharge he had been performing his duty with respondent No.3. The applicant had also brought his brother for help.
3. It is further pleaded that respondent No.3 got some papers signed from the applicant and respondent No.3 did not allow him to perform duty after 28.10.2010 without any reason. Thereupon he reported the matter to the Chief Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and he was told that as per information from respondent No.3, the applicant had resigned. It is on the basis of these facts the applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the aforesaid reliefs:
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents and they have filed the counter affidavit. Facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. However, it has been stated that in Railways, Junior Administrative Grade officers and above are entitled for the services of Bungalow Khallasi at their residence to meet with official work arising out of Railway operation at their residence also. It is further stated that the Bungalow Peons are engaged specifically to perform the duties, such as to carry official files/dak to the bungalow of the officers to whom they are attached, to attend to official telephone calls at the officers bungalow, to deliver message to other officers etc. Thus, according to the respondents, owing to the sensitive nature of the job involving Bungalow Peons presence at the residence of the officer when he/she shall be at work place/on tours/on training, person engaged as such has to be a dependable/ reliable/faithful and person in whom officer should have full trust. Every entitled officer can exercise his/her option for engaging person of his/her choice.
5. The respondents have also annexed a copy of PS No.10960/95 issued in January 1995 containing terms and conditions for appointment of Substitute Bungalow Khallasises as Annexure R-I. The respondents have, therefore, stated that services of the applicant were found unsatisfactory by respondent No.3 under whom he was working and applicant was issued warning letter dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure R-II).
6. The respondents have categorically stated in the reply affidavit that since the applicant was unwilling to work as Bungalow Khallasi, he submitted the resignation on 17.8.2010 (Annexure R-3) stating that he has to go to his home town to look after his aged parents.
7. As regards the allegation raised by the applicant that respondent No.3 got the papers signed fraudulently and maliciously and in fact he has never submitted the resignation, the respondents in the reply have categorically stated that the applicant is a graduate and not an illiterate person. It has further been argued that the applicant in his resignation dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure R-2) has stated that he has to go to his home town to look after his aged parents, as such when the applicant was unwilling to work he is not entitled to any relief.
8. The applicant has filed rejoinder, thereby reiterating the submissions made in the OA. It has been categorically stated that the applicant has never submitted the resignation and the so-called resignation is a forged document.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
10. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Shri Lakhi Ram v. Union of India & others (WP (C) No.6070 of 2006) decided on 5.10.2007 wherein it has been held that person who has attained temporary status cannot be terminated without applying full procedure as described in the D & A Rules, thereby giving reasonable opportunity to the employee to meet the accusations of indecent behavior/misbehavour in a departmental enquiry. To the similar effect is also the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in Shri Dharamender Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & others, 2006 (1) ATJ 408 where the services of the Bungalow Khallasi were terminated on false and concocted grounds of absence from duty without giving any notice of termination from service.
11. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Ram Meena v. Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur & others, JT 1997 (2) SC 16 and contended that this Tribunal cannot go into the appreciation of evidence.
12. Learned counsel for respondents while drawing our attention to the resignation letter submitted that since the applicant has tendered the resignation from service for personal reasons, which resignation has been accepted by the competent authority, he cannot now resile from his so-called statement/resignation to contend that his signature was taken on a blank paper and the resignation letter is a forged document. According to the learned counsel for respondents, the matter falls in the realm of appreciation of evidence and this Tribunal in exercise of its judicial power cannot go into this disputed question of facts.
13. Learned counsel for respondents has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Pinaki Chatterjee & others v. Union of India & others (2009) 5 SCC 193 to contend that the selection of the applicant was not made in conformity with the constitutional scheme by advertising the post and making selection from open market. It is contended that Bungalow Khallasies are engaged on the recommendations of a person to whom such services are to be provided. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicant is not legally right to hold the post and no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to engage the applicant.
14. We have given due consideration to the submissions made the parties. The fact remains that the resignation letter contains the signature of the applicant. Even the applicant has not disputed this fact that the said so-called resignation letter does not bear his signature. The version given by the applicant is that such signature was obtained by respondent No.3 on a blank paper with a clear understanding that he is being transferred to Kashmere Gate Office.
15. On the contrary, the case set up by the respondents in the reply affidavit is that the applicant was also issued a notice containing warning on 30.7.2010 but the applicant refused to take the said notice. The copy of the said notice was served upon him in the presence of two witnesses and it is only thereafter the applicant has submitted his resignation letter, which was accepted by the competent authority.
16. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, it is not permissible for us to hold that version given by the respondents is palpably false and the self-serving version given by the applicant should be accepted. It may be stated here that it is not a case of such nature where services of the applicant were terminated on account of his work and conduct. Rather the applicant is not permitted to perform his duty on account of resignation tendered by him, which appears to have been accepted by the competent authority. Thus the case laws cited by the learned counsel for applicant are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is found bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M.L. Chauhan )
Member (A) Member (J)
/sunil/