Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sachchidanand Kumar vs East Coast Railway on 26 November, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024
Reserved on 25.11.2024 Pronounced on 26.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Sri Sachchidanand Kumar, aged about 46 years, S/o.
Kusho Singh, AT/P.O- Mahasamund, Dist- Mahasamund,
Chattisgarh, PIN-493445, at present working as Trainee
JE P Way, SSE (P) Way, Mahasamund.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its General
Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, PIN-
751016.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Sambalpur, At-
DRM Office Building, Khetrajpur, Dist-Sambalpur, PIN-
768003.
3. Senior DPO, Sambalpur, At-DRM Office Building,
AT/P.O-Khetrajpur, Sambalpur, Dist-Sambalpur, PIN-
768003.
4. Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination) Sambalpur,
AT/P.O-Khetrajpur, Sambalpur, Dist-Sambalpur, PIN-
768003.
2 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024
5. Ms. Pratyusha Mishra, working under SSE (P) Way,
Sambalpur, AT/P.O-Khetrajpur, Sambalpur, Dist-
Sambalpur, PIN-768003.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. Saswat Das, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. D.P.Mohapatra, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this OA against the order dated 25.04.2024 wherein Respondent No. 3 decided to remove his name from the panel of JE (P Way) in level VI (GP 4200) against 20% LDCE in Civil Engineering Department with replacement by one Ms. Pratyusha Mishra TM - IV/SBP (Resp. No.5). It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant appeared in the written examination conducted on 25.02.2023, result of which was published on 11.07.2023 wherein his name was placed at Sl. No. 156 and the name of Respondent No. 5 was placed at Sl. No. 234. It is submitted that a provisional panel for promotion was published on 26.06.2023 where the name of the applicant was placed at Sl No. 4. The applicant then was promoted to the post of JE (P Way) on 26.09.2023 3 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024 and sent for training course. He was then sent on pre-promotional training and, on completion of class room training, he was detailed to undergo field-training for two months from 04.03.2024 to 03.05.2024. It is submitted that the respondents vide order dated 25.04.2024 revised the marks and, accordingly, the name of applicant was removed from the panel of JE (P Way) but without giving him any notice or opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the said action of respondents being against rules and in violation of principle of natural justice, he has prayed to grant the relief sought by him in this OA as under:
"(i) Admit the original application;
(ii) Call for the Records;
(iii) Issue necessary direction to quash the order dated 25.04.2024 (under Annexure-A/7) & Office Memorandum No. Engg/52/2024 dt. 08.05.2024 (under Annexure-A/8) respectively as being illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law inasmuch as the same is contrary to the Rule 16 of the Master Circular-31 and so also the principles of natural justice;
(iv) This Hon'ble Tribunal be further pleased to direct the Respondents not to disturb the name of the Applicant from the panel list of JE (P Way) under (Annexure-A/4 & A/5) and the Applicant be allowed to continue and complete his training programme as before in consequence to the order of promotion to the post of JE (P Way) pursuant to the order/letter dated 26.09.2023 4 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024 under Annexure-A/5. The Applicant be further allowed to draw all the service benefits as is admissible to the post of JE (P Way) as was allowed to him prior to the impugned order within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
(v) And also pass any other appropriate order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Respondents filed counter contesting and objecting the case of the applicant and stating inter alia that this OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Based on the pleadings, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that applicant was one of the candidates in the fray of selection conducted by the respondents department for empanelment for promotion to the post in question. He had secured 93.334 marks in the written test and, accordingly, his name was placed at Sl. No. 156 and the name of Respondent No. 5 was placed at Sl. No. 234 vide letter dated 11.07.2023. On receipt of the information under RTI Act, respondent No. 5 submitted representation on 16.10.2023 requesting re-evaluation the Question Nos. 36 & 77. She stated that, the answer to Q. No. 36 should be option 'B' instead of Option-'C' and answer to Q. No. 77 should be option 'C' instead of 'D'.
5 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024
3.. It is submitted that in terms of the statutory provision under Rule- 13(i), (ii) & (iii) of Master Circular No. 31 and, by the order of the competent authority, the Selection Committee re-evaluated the answer sheet and found that the answer to Q. No. 36 should be option 'B' instead of Option- 'C' and answer to Q. No. 77 should be option 'C' instead of 'D'. Accordingly, the earlier provision panel dated 26.06.2023 was amended/modified with the approval of the competent authority in terms of Rules- 16(ii) & 16(ii)(a) of Master Circular No. 31, as a consequence thereof, respondent No.5 was found to have secured 0.333 marks more than the applicant. This was communicated to the applicant vide DRM(P)/ECOR/SBP's letter dated 25.04.2024, receipt of which was acknowledged by him on 29.04.2024. As a follow up action, the name of the applicant, who was in the earlier panel at Sl. No. 04, was replaced by respondent No. 5 in the modified/amended provisional panel vide Memorandum No. ENGG/52/2024 dated 08.05.2024. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the stand taken by the applicant that the action was taken without giving him any opportunity is nothing but afterthought. Last but not the least, it is submitted by him that 6 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024 the applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting the departmental remedy and, therefore, this OA is hit by the provision of Section 20 of the AT Act. Hence, he has submitted that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in Section 20 of the AT Act it has been provided that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit the OA unless it is certified that the applicant had availed of all the remedy under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. Therefore, the legislation was conscious that in extraordinary circumstances, the Tribunal can entertain the OA even where the applicant approached the Tribunal without exhausting such remedy. In the instant case, the Tribunal having entertained the OA and, at this belated stage, throwing out the application on some technical grounds will be unjustified. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the cases of Pradeep Kumar Panda Vs UOI & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 3237/2017, Narendra Kumar Behera Vs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, 1999 SCC Online Ori 212, and decision in R.K.Singh Vs. UOI & Ors, 1999(4) AWC 3605, 7 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024 M.V.Valsala Vs. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs & Ors, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 28277, etc. It has been further averred in the written notes of submission of the applicant that as per Rule 16(ii) of the Master Circular-31 applicant needed to be given opportunity to explain his case before removing him from the panel after one year of his promotion.
5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records. We have also gone through the decisions relied on by the applicant. In view of the decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant supra, the stand taken by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that since the applicant approached this Tribunal without availing of the opportunity available to him by way of making representation/appeal this OA is liable to be dismissed, cannot stand in the scrutiny of law.
6. As regards merit of the matter, on re-evaluation of the answer sheet, the Respondent No.5 was found to have secured higher mark in the test than the applicant is not in dispute. The order to re- evaluate the answer sheet was also seen to have been done in terms of the Rules and by the order of the competent authority. The 8 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024 modified list was also duly communicated to the applicant but he did not make any representation, if he was having any grievance on the same. The applicant also neither challenged the authority of the respondents for re-evaluating the answer sheets of respondent No.5 nor has he challenged the valuation/re-evaluation made by the Committee by the order of the competent authority in terms of Rules. It is well settled law that the authority is competent to rectify its mistake as per Rules and Law. In view of the above, it cannot be said that no opportunity was allowed to the applicant. However, the applicant did not produce any record that he had secured more mark than the respondent No.5 or the marks on revaluation given to respondent No.5 was in any manner not correct. In the circumstances, giving opportunity to the applicant would have been an empty formality and non-compliance of which cannot be faulted with, which is well supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh, [2007] 1 SCC (L&S) 16, wherein it has been held that the principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with where the same would have been an empty formality and thus, court will not 9 O.A.No. 260/00281 of 2024 insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find no substance on the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant so as to interfere in the matter.
7. In the result this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS