Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras

T Jayaraman vs M/O Railways on 13 October, 2023

                                   1                 OA 310/01004/2015


            CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                     CHENNAI BENCH

                         OA 310/01004/2015

  Dated Friday the 13th day of October Two Thousand Twenty Three

                             CORAM :

    HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
                         &
  HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)

T. Jayaraman
S/o Late Thirumalai
No. T/T, 3010
Ex. P. Man 'A' NVL
15, D-Railway Quarters
Ulundurpet Railway Station
Villupuram District.                                 ...Applicant

By Advocate M/s. L. Rajendran

-vs-

1. The Divisional Railway Manager (TPJ)
Divisional Office
Personnel Branch
Tiruchirappalli
Southern Railway.

2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager (TPJ)
Divisional Office
Personnel Branch
Tiruchirappalli
Southern Railway.

3. The Divisional Operating Manager (TPJ)
Divisional Office
Personnel Branch
Tiruchirappalli
Southern Railway.
                               2         OA 310/01004/2015
4. The Additional Officer
Divisional Office
Personnel Branch
Tiruchirappalli
Southern Railway.

5. The Traffic Inspector
Vriddhachalam Junction
Cuddalore District
Southern Railway.                  ....Respondents

By Advocate Ms. Meera Gnanasekar
                                        3                      OA 310/01004/2015




                               ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:

"a. To set aside the impugned order of rejection dated 21.07.2014 in No. T/T.195/Inspn/T1/VRI/25/11/2013 passed by the Second Respondent confirming the First Respondent order dated 24.05.2014 in No. T/T.195/M.Inspn/T1/VRI/25/11-TJ confirming the Third Respondent order in his proceedings No. Tfc.Admn./17/2014 dated 28.01.2014 and consequently direct the Third Respondent to reinstate the applicant with all benefits.
b. To pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and thus render justice."

2. The brief facts of the case in nuthsell is as under:

The applicant came to be appointed as Traffic employee in Southern Railway on 08.11.1989. Subsequently he was promoted as Points Man in Grade-A and he was posted to Ulundurpet Railway station during the year 2009. Due to some personal difficulties and unavoidable circumstances, the applicant has not attended the duty from 14.11.2012 till the date of enquiry. The applicant was issued with a charge memorandum dt.
25.03.2013 and the same was acknowledged by the applicant on 06.04.2013 for the unauthorised absence from 14.11.2012 to 12.02.2013.

After the Inquiry Proceedings, the applicant was issued an order of Removal from Service w.e.f. 30.01.2014 by letter dated 28.01.2014. The 4 OA 310/01004/2015 applicant was given 45 days time to file an appeal over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and he was sanctioned 50% of Pension and Gratuity as Compassionate allowance by the Disciplinary Authority. Against the said order, the applicant has preferred an appeal dated 16.03.2014, however his appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority on 24.05.2014, without considering his grievances. Though the applicant has accepted his unauthorised absence, against the Appellate authority order, he has preferred revision dated 16.06.2014 in detail. However, without considering the grievances and points raised in the revision, Reversionary Authority by its order dated 21.07.2014, rejected his appeal. Applicant has again submitted representation to the higher authorities so far no reply has been received. The applicant further contended that, though, he has rendered unblemished long continuous service in the organisation, without giving proper hearing opportunity, the applicant has been removed from the service. Hence the applicant has challenged the order of Reversionary Authority and prayed for the aforesaid relief.

3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel, and filed their detailed reply statement and raised the preliminary objection on the ground that the applicant has not exhausted all the remedies. Moreover the respondents contended that the Appellate Authoriyt has not considered the explanation submitted by the applicant 5 OA 310/01004/2015 for the reason that the applicant has caused greater inconvenience to the administration by way of absenting himself from duty and not admitting his mistakes. The applicant is an habitual absentee was extended enough opportunity to correct his mistakes and has miserably failed to utilise them which resulted int eh order of Removal from service. It is stubmitted that the action of the Appellate Authoirty is justifiable and maintainable as per the provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Rules in Railways. Hence, the respondents pray for the dismissal of the OA.

4. The applicant has also filed MA 735/2016 and raised some additional grounds. The applicant has also filed rejoinder.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. The main thurst of argument of the learned counsel is that since the charge memo was not served upon the applicant, the enquiry is vitiated on the ground that it has not followed with the principles of natural law. He was not given any reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that though he has accepted the guilt, the respondents have not shown any mercy.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the arguments and submitted that the applicant has attended the enquiry and he was given full opportunity and he himself has declined to take defence help and the same has been recorded in the DAR proceedings dated 10.08.2013. Moreover, the applicant has been granted 50% Pension 6 OA 310/01004/2015 as well as Gratuity but neither in his appeal nor in his revision the said plea has been raised by the applicant. The applicant also has not exhausted all the remedies.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant upon hearing, submitted that applicant has already preferred the Mercy Petition to the Hon'ble President of India and the same is pending till date. In view of the same, OA is dismissed, since the Mercy Petition of the applicant is pending before Hon'ble President the applicant cannot avail the plural remedies at the same time. No order as to costs.




 (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)                  (Lata Baswaraj Patne)
      Member (A)                                 Member (J)
                        13.10.2023
AS