Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Singh Meena vs M/O Railways on 20 November, 2025
1 O.A No. 1971/2016
Item 26 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1971/2016
Reserved on : 13.11.2025
Pronounced on : 20.11.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Ram Singh Meena,
age about 58 years,
Gangman, N. Riv. Lucknow Division,
R/o 167 Minto Bridge. Rly. Colony,
New Delhi ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. S. P. Sethi)
Vs.
1. Union of India through
General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House New Delhi-110001
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
Lucknow Division Lucknow (UP) ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Piyush Gaur)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
This is the second round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order to direct the respondents to produce the complete record pertaining to D&AR proceedings including chargesheet etc, and other relevant documents in the 2 O.A No. 1971/2016 Item 26 (C-3) interest of justice as the applicant in in possession of very limited documents which have been annexed with this 0. A.
ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24/28.01.2005 bearing No. 15/E/SFS/04 issued by the Disciplinary Authority ADEN, Northern Railway, Lucknow and grant all consequential benefits including re-instatement with full back wages as the removal of the applicant is against the law of the land & there is violation of principle of natural justice.
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with coat of litigation."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant who belongs to ST category and was initially appointed as a Gangman in the Lucknow Division of Northern Railway has been aggrieved by the impugned penalty order dated 24/28.01.2005 of removing him from service. According to the counsel, the applicant comes from lower strata of the society and has a very low financial status. While in service he faced many personal challenges like bereavement of his parents one after the other and paralysis attack to his daughter due to which he could not perform his official duties properly for certain period. Consequently, he was served with a charge sheet vide Memo No. 151E/2001 dated 4.9.2001 by ADEN/I/Lucknow. Thereafter inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.12.2004 on 05.01.2005 finding him guilty of the charges leveled against him, pursuant to which the Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal from service on 24.01.2005 which has been assailed by the applicant in this OA. 3 O.A No. 1971/2016 Item 26 (C-3) Aggrieved, the applicant submitted a representation against the inquiry report on 20.01.2005 to the competent authority, but to no avail. He argued that the applicant was never given a chance to present his side and to explain the reason behind his absence which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer did not afford opportunity to examine the applicant as C.O. which is mandatory as per Discipline and Appeal Rules (D&A Rules). Thus, he submitted an Appeal to the Appellate Authority. However, the same was also not decided which made him to file OA before this Tribunal bearing No. 1730/2008. The said OA was disposed of on 13.08.2008 with the following order :-
"Appeal against penalty is yet to be disposed of. Accordingly, OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the pending appeal of the applicant by a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The respondents did not take any action even after the aforesaid order of the Tribunal which pushed the applicant to file a Revision Petition as per the provisions of the D&A Rules addressed to the President of India through Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow Division. But the applicant still remained empty handed. Hence, this OA.
3. The applicant urged various grounds which are reproduced below :-
"A. Under rule 20 of the Railway Servants Disciplinary & Appeal Rules 1968, there is a provision that "appellate 4 O.A No. 1971/2016 Item 26 (C-3) authority may entertain the appeal, after the expiry of the said period, if it in satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time" and in the present case the applicant explained the delay in filling an appeal and prayed for condonation of delay and therefore the appeal of the applicant should have been considered by the appellate authority.
B. Non-consideration of an appeal forced the applicant to file O.A No. 1730/2008 which was disposed of with directions as explained/enunciated, above but despite Hon'ble CAT PB's order dated 13.8.2008 the applicant was not communicated any decision.
C. Personal visits to the office of the respondent No. 2. the applicant was not imparted justice despite the fact that the Inquiry Officer had categorically decided/observed/concluded that the absence from duty was not willful but under the compelling circumstances.
D. The respondents are bound to follow the prescribe rules but the action of the respondents is arbitrary and wrong and in violation of the relevant rules as well as law of the land.
E. It is settled law that the absence from duty for the explained reasons which forced the applicant to remain absent does not ipso facto empowers the respondents to pass an order of removal from service. Therefore, action of the respondents issuing orders of removal from service is against the principle of natural F. The absence from duty was beyond the control of the applicant.
G. When appeal is not decided or rejected the applicant has right to file revision petition addressed to President of India and respondents are duty bound to forward the same to the competent authority for decision which has not been done in the present case.
H. It is laid down law as decided in Hon'ble Tribunal's orders in the case of A. Parasado Ram Versus Union of India reported in 1994 (2) AT 434 held that mere absence from duty cannot be treated as misconduct so as to attract the punishment of removal from service of regular employee.
I. The representation submitted by the applicant, the respondents have not considered and no decision has been communicated.5 O.A No. 1971/2016
Item 26 (C-3) J. It is clear from the E.0. report that absence of the applicant was justified and beyond his control but the Disciplinary authority without giving any opportunity to the applicant disagreed with the findings of the E.0. report and stated that reasons given for long absence are not sufficient and imposed the penalty of absence from duty leading to removal from service which is illegal in the eyes of law.
K. The punishment given to the applicant is not commensurating to the gravity of the misconduct and therefore the impugned order is illegal against which an appeal as well as revision petition of the applicant has not been decided.
L. There is non-application of mind which is mandatory in D&AR Rules on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.
M. The applicant informed the competent authority and even approached the authorities to put the applicant back to duty but the applicant was not allowed to perform duty.
N. The disciplinary authority did not consider the medical documents and other documents of the applicant which is illegal in the eyes of law.
O. General examination of the applicant has not been done as required under the Rules.
P. There is violation of prescribed rules as envisaged in the D&AR Rules."
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the counter-affidavit, argued that the applicant had joined service on 21.01.1993 as Gangaman but, after completing only six months of duty, he abandoned his post from 27.04.1993 without any prior intimation or permission. He is a Gangman and this post falls under a safety category. The applicant neither reported for duty nor informed the authorities of the reasons for his absence, claiming only certain 'good or bad moments' of his life. As per Railway rules, an employee is required to inform the administration within 48 hours of any such 6 O.A No. 1971/2016 Item 26 (C-3) absence; however, the applicant failed to comply with this mandatory requirement. He further stated that the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent for 08 years without any advance intimation and without any permission. It was only after affording him adequate opportunity to defend himself and to produce any evidence in his favour, was the impugned order passed. He added that the applicant failed to mention any rule/instructions under which he should be put back to duty. Hence he prayed for dismissal of this OA.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and examined the relevant documents and records. We have observed that the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent for eight long years without any advance intimation and without any permission from the respondents. This is a very serious and unpardonable misconduct nay dereliction of duty. Every civil servant undergoes pain and tragedy in his/her personal life but then faces challenges by informing the superior authorities and taking leave; and after attending to his/her personal challenges, the Govt. officer returns back to discharge the Govt. duties. In the instant OA, we are dismayed nay shocked to observe that the petitioner remained absent for eight long years and was therefore rightfully dismissed. Moreover, in Disciplinary proceedings (DP) matter the Courts are in a very narrow compass. We are not Appellate Authority and no way are we expected to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute the punishment 7 O.A No. 1971/2016 Item 26 (C-3) awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Also the impugned order dated 24/28th January, 2005 vide which the petitioner was dismissed is a very old order dating more than twenty years back. Much water has flown in the rivers - Ganga and Gomti since then.
6. In the light of the above, we are in no way inclined to interfere in this matter. The balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar fashion. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/