Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
S N Dubey vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2022
OA No. 330/1393/2011
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 28th day of March 2022
Original Application No. 330/1393 of 2011
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Satya Narain Dubey, a/a 58 years, S/o Late Sita Ram Dubey, R/o 296 K,
Shayam Kunj Colony, Shahpur, District - Gorakhpur.
. . .Applicant
By Adv : Shri S.K. Kushwaha and Shri A.K. Tiwari
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Railways, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Railway, North-Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur
Division, Gorakhpur.
3. Principal Chief Engineer, Railways, North-Eastern Railways,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur.
4. Divisional Railway Manger (Engineer), North-Eastern Railways,
Varanasi.
5. Senior Divisional Engineer, North-Eastern Railways, Varanasi.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri N.C. Srivastava
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) Heard Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant is aggrieved by order vide which he has been removed from service and his appeal as also his revision petition against the removal too stand dismissed.
Page 1 of 3
OA No. 330/1393/2011
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who was working in the Railways, was involved in a criminal case and has been convicted under Section 409 IPC, 477 A IPC and Section 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under the relevant sections he has been sentenced to concurrent sentences of seven years, two years of impressments and five years of vigorous imprisonment respectively, besides imposition of fines.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents on record. We find that the order passed by the disciplinary authority invoking the provisions of Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules to impose the penalty of removal from service is a very cryptic order and does not pass even the elementary test of a reasoned and speaking order. The disciplinary authority has not even made a mention of the charges against the applicant or the arguments and facts he has put forth in his defence nor the evidence that has come on record. The order passed by the appellate authority is no better and even more cryptic. However, to be fair to the appellate authority, he does make a passing reference that the applicant has been sentenced to vigorous imprisonment. However, the revising authority has discussed the allegations against the applicant and also made a mention of the charges against him. To cut a long story short the penalty of removal from service has been retained at all the levels.
5. No doubt we are of the firm view that none of the three orders i.e. the orders of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisionary authority would qualify as reasoned and speaking orders, we have also to take cognizance of the fact that the applicant has been Page 2 of 3 OA No. 330/1393/2011 convicted by the competent Criminal Court, and even though the orders suffer from legal infirmity, the root cause of the penalty of removal from service sustains. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has preferred an appeal against his conviction, which is still pending.
6. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to award any relief to the applicant even though he may have been removed from service by way of cryptic and non speaking order. Therefore, since no relief is possible at this juncture, this OA stands disposed. The applicant would be at liberty to revive the same in case he manages an adequate and appropriate relief in his criminal appeal.
7. There is no order as to costs.
(Pratima K Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/Piyush/
Page 3 of 3