Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Brijesh Kumar vs The Secretary Railway Board on 16 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA No.2658/2012
NEW DELHI THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sh. Brijesh Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Babu Lal,
C/o Shri Than Singh,
H.No. 6/77, Kothi Lank Ram,
Thana Banna Devi,
Distt. Aligarh-202001 (U.P.).
Applicant
(By advocate: Sh. Khairati Lal)
VERSUS
1. The Secretary Railway Board,
Rail Mantralaya, New Delhi.
2. The Principal,
Western Railway, Vadodhra.
3. The General Manager (E),
Church Gate, Mumbai.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Pratap Nagar,
Vadodhra.
Respondents
O R D E R (ORAL)
Sh. G.George Paracken:
The applicant in this Original Application was selected as an Apprentice Assistant Loco Pilot by the Railway Recruitment Board. The General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai directed him to report to DRM Vadodhra for further orders. Thereafter, as a pre-condition for his appointment as Assistant Loco Pilot in the grade of Rs.3050-4590, he was deputed for the initial training under principal ZTC/BRCY for 39 weeks. He jointed the training for the aforesaid post w.e.f. 19.11.2008 but according to him, he had to proceed to his native place Aligarh after three days due to sudden abdominal pain and applied for three days leave to his immediate superior. Since he could not recover his health, he informed the concerned official in the training school, Vadodhra through registered letter and according to him the same might be available with the respondents but he did not receive any response from Sr. DRM/DPO/Principal Vadodhra. Meanwhile, his father expired after long illness and, therefore, he had to remain at home due to prevailing social circumstances and due to his own illness as he was getting treatment from a private doctor named Dr. Ashok Aggarwal, MBBS at Jaiganj, Aligarh and during the period from 22.11.2008 to 25.01.2011 from Dr. S. Biswas, BSc., MBBS, Saria Hakim, Algarh w.e.f. 26.01.2011 to 09.02.2011. Again, he remained under treatment under Sr. DMO, N.C. Railway, Jhansi w.e.f. 10.02.2011 to 24.03.2011 and finally he was declared fit by the Sr. DMO, N.C.Railway on 24.03.2011 with the remarks that he was fit to travel. Thereafter, he reported for duty on 25.03.2011 to the Principal ZTC/BRCY and requested him to allow him to continue his training with the next batch. He had also submitted all the correspondence between him and the respondents. However, the Principal verbally directed him to report to DRM Vadodhra and accordingly he reported to DRM/Sr. DPO Vadodhra. Again, as directed, he met Assistant APO III Vadodhra and handed over all the documents but he advised the Applicant to report after a few days. After two days he again met the APO-III and the Sr. DPO/DRM BRC who informed him that his case was under consideration. However, the APO III vide the impugned annexure A-1 letter No.E/L/190 dated 06.07.2011 terminated his services without giving any reasonable opportunities. According to the applicant, the aforesaid act on the part of the APO-III/BRC is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. He has also stated that the APO-III was not the competent officer to terminate the services of a group C employee.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sh. Khairati Lal. It is seen that the applicant was selected as Apprentice Assistant Loco Pilot, vide respondents letter No. E (R&T) 890/4/indent/Mech dated 18.1.2008. After he was found medically fit, the Assistant Personnel Officer (II) BRC for DRM (E) BRC, vide its letter No.E/L/890/25-Vol. VI dated 19.11.2008, deputed him for initial training under principal ZTC/BRCY for 39 weeks. During the period of training, he was entitled for a stipend of Rs.3050/- per month plus dearness allowance as admissible under the rules. It is also seen that his appointment was on purely provisional basis and his apprenticeship was also liable to be terminated at any stage without any prior intimation. The admitted position by the applicant himself in this case is that he had submitted an application for leave on 19.11.2008 immediately after three days of the commencement of the training on the ground of abdominal pain and his deteriorating health. But without waiting for the permission of the authority concerned or taking any treatment locally, he immediately left for his home at Aligarh. According to him, he was under treatment there under different doctors till 24.03.2011, i.e., for about 2 = years. First of all, we fail to understand why should he left his training and went to his home just because he had some abdominal pain. He should have got himself treated at the place of his training itself. When a candidate who has been selected for appointment as Assistant Loco Pilot and deputed for the initial training of 39 weeks, if he has absented himself from the training without any prior sanction, he cannot expect that the respondents would wait indefinitely to train him for the aforesaid post. Moreover, it is seen that by the letter dated 19.11.2008 it was made clear to the applicant that his appointment itself was on provisional basis and it could be regularized only after successful completion of the training. The respondents in the impugned letter has already stated that his act of absenting himself continuously for 2= years immediately after three days of joining the training proves himself to be a person of careless attitude. Therefore, his apprentice as Assistant Loco Pilot was terminated.
3. In our considered view also, a person who has been selected for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot left his training school without any prior approval from the 3rd day of his training itself on the ground of abdominal pain and deteriorating health and remained absent un-authorisedly for 2 = years, can have no valid claim for completion of the training later and consequent regularization in the said post. We also find that the contention of the applicant that he was terminated by an incompetent authority is also not valid. The applicant can be treated as appointed on regular basis only after successful completion of the training. Since the applicant was only a trainee, he cannot claim that he has already been appointed to a group C post.
4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this case and accordingly the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Sudhir Kumar ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) vb