Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ram Pyare Chauhan vs Union Of India on 1 May, 2024
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00383 of 2016 Ram Pyare Chauhan Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.332/00383/2016
Order reserved on: 24.04.2024
Order pronounced on: 01.05.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Ram Pyare Chauhan, aged about 56 years, son of Late Sri Ram
Krishan Chauhan, resident of A/12/01/01, Block-A-12, Sulabh Awas
Yojna, Asray, 1, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the General Manager,
North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. The Medical Superintendent,
North Eastern Railway,
Aishbagh, Lucknow.
3. The Sr. Divisional Medical Officer,
North Eastern Railway,
5-Ashok Marg,
Lucknow.
4. The Chief Medical Director,
North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta/Ms.Madhu Yadav
ORDER
Per Hon'bleMr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned order dated 25.09.2013 along with order dated 04.10.2013 and rejection order dated 13.10.2015 contained as Annexure Page 1 of 6 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00383 of 2016 Ram Pyare Chauhan Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
No. A-1 and 2 to this OA, with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion etc.
2. To treat the applicant in service and release the difference/arrears of pay along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4. Cost of the present case."
2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant was issued a memorandum of charge dated 29.08.2006 under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for having demanded money illegally and receiving Rs. 50/- for supplying medicine in railway department. In the enquiry, the charge was found proved. The disciplinary authority, vide order dated 10.09.2008, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The applicant preferred appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority on 10.12.2008. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a revision petition whereupon the revising authority, on 23.04.2010, ordered conversion of the punishment from compulsory retirement to reduction of pay by two stages without postponing future effect for one year. Before this order could be issued, the person holding the post of revising authority was changed and the successor officerissued order dated 03.08.2010 rejecting the applicant's petition and maintaining the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority.
2.2 Aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 498 of 2010. This Tribunal set aside the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the revising authority,and directed that the order dated 23.04.2010 holds good and may be acted upon by the respondents. In the Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1284 of 2012 preferred by the respondents, Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 16.07.2013, while observing that this Page 2 of 6 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00383 of 2016 Ram Pyare Chauhan Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. Tribunal rightly held the order dated 03.08.2010 of the revising authority to be unsustainable, directed the revising authority to pass an order in accordance with law afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal.
2.3 The revising authority, in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, passed a detailed order dated 25.09.2013 agreeing with the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the administrative officer. Aggrieved at this order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondents have passed order dated 25.09.2013 ignoring the directions given by this Tribunal as well as the order dated 16.07.2013 of Hon'ble High Court on the matter.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that the Chief Medical Director, North Eastern Railway, Headquarter's Office, Gorakhpur was not under the influence of the opinion expressed by the Vigilance Department and has not considered the order dated 23.04.2010 and 03.08.2010 while passing the order dated 25.09.2013 as the applicant's revision petition was considered afresh in view of the observations made by this Tribunal in judgment dated 18.05.2012 passed in OA No. 498 of 2010 and Hon'ble High Court's judgment and order dated 16.07.2013 passed in WP No. 1284 (S/B) of 2012.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the order dated 16.07.2013 of Hon'ble High Court. The concluding part of the order is extracted below:
"Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner to the extent with regard to enforcement of order dated 03.08.2010 as observed hereinabove, the decision taken on 23.04.2010 by the Page 3 of 6 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00383 of 2016 Ram Pyare Chauhan Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
Revisional Authority were modified by the successor revisional authority merely on the basis of opinion expressed by Vigilance Department. The opinion expressed by Vigilance Department is not binding. Earlier, the Revisional Authority has taken a decision independently on merits keeping in view the material on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly held that the order dated 03.08.2010 putting claimant-respondent with regard to his punishment of compulsory retirement, is not sustainable. We fully agree with the observations made by the Tribunal.
However, the question arises whether the order dated 23.04.2010 may be given effect by the court or not. We are of the view that court may not usurp the powers of revisional authority. It is for the Revisional Authority to pass an order in accordance with law afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we modify the Tribunal's order dated 28.05.2012 and direct the petitioner/ revisional authority to pass a fresh order without being influenced by the opinion expressed by the vigilance Department as well as the order dated 03.08.2010. Ordinarily, the successor officer has to abide by the decision taken by earlier authority. In case order is revised then reason must be assigned.
Subject to above, we modify the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 28.05.2012 to the extent stated above and hold that the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the revisional authority is not sustainable and valid. Accordingly, we direct the Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal and this court expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Tribunal's order is modified accordingly. The writ petition is decided finally in terms of above."
(emphasis supplied) 6.2 Certain important considerations emerge from the extracts of order dated 16.07.2013 of Hon'ble High Court quoted above. First, that the successor revising authority's order dated 03.08.2010 was held to be unsustainable as it was passed merely on advice of vigilance wing. Second, that the predecessor revising authority had taken a decision independently keeping in view the material on record. Third, that the successor revising authority has to abide by the decision taken by its predecessor and in case such decision is required to be revised, assign reasons for such deviation. Fourth, the revising authority was directed to pass order afresh without being influenced by the opinion of vigilance Page 4 of 6 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00383 of 2016 Ram Pyare Chauhan Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. wing as well as the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the successor revising authority merely on advice tendered by the vigilance wing. 6.3 A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.09.2013 reveals, to our consternation, that the revising authority has failed to follow the directions given by Hon'ble High Court by reaching the same conclusion, i.e., imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement, as advised earlier by the vigilance wing. The manner in which the same conclusion punishment of compulsory retirement has been reached in the impugned order makes us wonder whether this is a case of old wine in new bottle. The impugned order fails the smell test on this consideration alone. The giveaway is the averment made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the revising authority was not under the influence of the opinion expressed by the Vigilance Department and has not considered the order dated 23.04.2010 and 03.08.2010 while passing the order dated 25.09.2013. We may refresh the memory of the respondents that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to "direct the petitioner/ revisional authority to pass a fresh order without being influenced by the opinion expressed by the vigilance Department as well as the order dated 03.08.2010."Nowhere in the order of Hon'ble High Court it was directed that the order dated 23.04.2010 was to be ignored. On the contrary, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that "Ordinarily, the successor officer has to abide by the decision taken by earlier authority. In case order is revised then reason must be assigned." The revising authority's impugned order dated 25.09.2013, in our opinion, is not in conformity with the directions given by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.07.2013 and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the revising authority is quashed and set aside. The revising authority Page 5 of 6 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00383 of 2016 Ram Pyare Chauhan Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. is directed to pass an order conforming, in letter and spirit, to the directions of Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 16.07.2013 of their Lordships within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Page 6 of 6