Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mahi Lal vs General Manager N C Rly on 6 May, 2025
1
Reserved on 04.04.2025
Pronounced on 06.05.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Original Application No.870 of 2014
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Mahi Lal son of Dhan Ram Working at S.S.E. (P. Way) Shafipur District Unnao,
resident of 7024 Sector-I L.D.A. Colony Kanpur Road Lucknow.
.............Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Devendra Pratap Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway Baroda
House New Delhi.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Moradabad
Division, Allahabad
3. Senior Divisional Engineer-II, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division
Moradabad.
. . . . . . . . . . Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Bablu Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A) Heard Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash the order dated 8-4-2014 (para 5) passed by respondent No. 3 to the extent imposing punishment of censor and non payment of salary w.e.f. 30-9-2013 to 3-4-
2014 and not treating this period on duty.
(ii) Issue further order to the respondents to pay entire Back wages allowances and other benefit along with 18% interest and entire period be treated as on duty.
PRIYADARSHANA 2
(iii) To impose heavy cost on respondent No.2 and 3 for wholly malafide, illegal and delay action will full causing loss to the public exchequer and public work and duty and be realized from the respondent No.2 and 3.
(iv) Award cost of the Original application."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in original application are that the applicant, serving as Senior Section Engineer (P. Way) Special at Shafipur, Unnao, was falsely implicated in Crime Case No. 3367/2001 under Sections 420, 218, 409, 468 IPC at G.R.P. Chauki, Gajraula, which was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha as Crime No. 278/1996. The CJM convicted and sentenced the applicant, allegedly without proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence. Following the conviction, the applicant was taken into custody. The applicant challenged the judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 42/2013 before the District Judge, which was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha. The appeal was admitted and bail was granted on 01.08.2013. After release, the applicant reported for duty, but was suspended with effect from 30.07.2013, the date of his custody. A Show Cause Notice under Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was issued. Despite submitting a reply and pointing out that the appeal was pending, the applicant was removed from service. The applicant filed an appeal against the removal, alleging malafide intentions and that the action was hasty and punitive. On 06.11.2013, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court‟s judgment, and exonerated the applicant. The applicant sent reminder letters on 11.12.2013 and 21.04.2014 seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits, based on the acquittal. Despite the acquittal, Respondent No. 2 passed an order awarding a censure entry and denied salary for the period 30.09.2013 to 03.04.2014 under RBE 54 of 1995, which was served on the applicant on 27.06.2014. The action is alleged to be illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, there is no other option except to file this original application. PRIYADARSHANA 3
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it has been stated that the applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) challenging the order dated 08.04.2014, whereby the punishment of removal from service under Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was reduced to "censure", and the period from 30.09.2013 to 03.04.2014 was treated as non-duty without pay. The applicant, working as SSE (P.Way), Shafipur, District Unnao, and residing in Lucknow, was earlier convicted in Criminal Case No. 3367 of 2001 under Sections 420, 218, 409, 468 IPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- by the ACJM on 30.07.2013. Based on this conviction, the competent authority imposed the penalty of removal from service after following due process. Subsequently, the applicant's criminal appeal was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Joytibafule Nagar, on 06.11.2013, and the departmental appeal filed on 10.11.2013 was considered in light of this development. The appellate authority reduced the penalty to "censure" via the order dated 08.04.2014. However, the period of absence from 30.09.2013 to 03.04.2014 was treated as non-duty without pay under the principle of "no work, no pay", since the applicant did not perform any service during that period. The applicant did not exhaust the available revisional remedy under the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 before approaching the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that since the applicant was posted and residing in Lucknow, the OA is not maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. It is contended that there is no violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution, and the OA is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit the applicant has reiterated the same averments as mentioned in the original application. In addition, it is stated that the impugned order has been passed by appellate authority i.e. respondent no.2 and the initial punishment order by respondent no.3 and both officers exist within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad Bench. The order of removal was PRIYADARSHANA 4 passed by appointing authority is wholly illegal and arbitrary as the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not sustainable in the eyes of law as there was no legal evidence against the applicant for awarding punishment. Applicant has been retired from service with effect from 31.01.2015. Due to impugned order passed by respondents, the applicant has suffered huge loss in retiral benefits as well as recurring loss in pension.
6. Submissions of both the parties have been heard and records have been gone through.
7. The applicant while working as Senior Section Engineer (SSE) (P. Way) Shafipur, Dist. Unnao, Northern Railway was convicted under Section 420, 218, 409, 468 I.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha on 30.07.2013 and the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine was also imposed on him. The applicant was under suspension with effect from 30.07.2013 as he had been under detention for more than 48 hours in terms of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Subsequently, a notice was also issued to the applicant under Rule 14(1) of RS(D&A) Rules, 1968 as to why action may not be taken against him to remove him from services. The penalty of Removal from service was imposed on the applicant on 30.09.2013 under Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for his conduct that led to his conviction. However, on his appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha he was acquitted in the Criminal Case vide its order dated 06.11.2013.
8. In view of his acquittal, the applicant submitted his appeal before the respondents against the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority considered the appeal of the applicant and passed the following order on 08.04.2014:-
PRIYADARSHANA 5 उत्तर रे लवे सं.-CA/SrDEN/II/D&AR/Mahi Lal/13 कामाारम भंडर ये र प्रफन्धक ददनांक: 08.04.2014 उत्तय ये रवे भुयादाफाद श्री भहोरार, ऩूवा वरयष्ठ खण्ड अभबमन्ता (ऩी०वे०), उ.ये ० सपीऩुय, जजरा-उन्नाव।
ववषमः सभसंख्मक शाजतत आदे श ददनांक 30.09.2013 के द्वाया प्रदान की गमी शाजतत "Removal from service" के ववरुद्ध अऩीर।
संदबा: आऩको अऩीर ददनांक-10.11.2013.
1. आऩको अऩय सत्र न्मामाधीश , अभयोहा द्वाया ददनांक- 06.11.13 को दोषभुक्त ककमा गमा है ।
2. इससे ऩहरे भुख्म न्मायमक भजजतरे ट द्वाया आयोऩ ऩत्र ऩय सुनवाई कयते हुए , दण्ड ददमा गमा था। मह ये रवे ववबाग के भरए छवव धूभभर कयने की फात थी।
3. परतवरूऩ आऩको Removal from service की शाजतत दी गई थी।
4. चूंकक ववबागीम कामावाही भें आयोऩ, भुख्म न्मायमक भजजतरे ट के यनर्ाम ( Judgment) ददनांक-30.07.13 भें वर्र्ात दण्ड ही था, जजससे दोषभुक्त ककमा जा चुका है ।
5. RBE 54/95 के अनुसाय ववचाय कयते हुए आऩका दण्ड घटाकय "Censure" ककमा जाता है । ददनांक- 30.09.13 से साथ ददनांक- 03.04.14 तक की अवधध को NON DUTY भाना जामेगा व इसका वेतन दे म नहीं होगा।
(दहतेन्र भल्होत्रा) अऩय भण्डर ये र प्रफन्धक
9. The applicant has sought to quash the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2014 passed by the appellate authority. The penalty of removal from services had been imposed on the applicant under Section 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 in the light of his conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the applicant has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha in the criminal case. Therefore, there is no ground for imposing any penalty under section 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 after his acquittal by the Court of Additional PRIYADARSHANA 6 Sessions Judge, Amroha. In view of this, the reduced penalty of „Censure‟ imposed on the applicant by the Appellate Authority under Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, is liable to be set aside and the same is, herby, set aside.
10. As far as the grant of back wages is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh in Civil Appeal No. 8565 of 2003 decided on 03.11.2003 has held the following:-
4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor it operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Ranchhodji¹. If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest of or by the department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations.
Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside.
PRIYADARSHANA 7
11. In the present case also the acquittal of the applicant was on the basis of his subsequent appeal in a higher Court. Hence, the department cannot, in any manner, be faulted for keeping him out of service. Therefore, the relief sought by the applicant regarding the payment of salary w.e.f. 30.09.2013 to 03.04.2014 is not permissible.
12. In view of above facts, the Original Application is partly allowed and the impugned order passed on 08.04.2014 by the appellate authority (respondent no. 3) is quashed only to the extent of imposing the reduced penalty of "Censure" upon the applicant. As far as the grant of back wages is concerned, the applicant is not eligible for any relief.
13. Pending M.As., if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
/neelam/
/Priyadarshana/
PRIYADARSHANA