Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Dharmi Meena vs M/O Railways on 27 February, 2026
1
OA No. 129/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 129/2017
Order reserved on: 29.01.2026
Date of order: 27.02.2026
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dharmi Meena son of Shri Dhan Ji Meena, aged around 36 years,
resident of Gangapur city, District Sawai Madhpur. Earlier working
as Senior Clerk, West Central Railway. (Group 'C' Post Service)
Email [email protected], Mob -9887819226.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Mathur)
Versus
1. The West Central Railway, through its General Manager,
Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota
Division Kota - 324001.
3. The D.P.O., West Central Railway, Kota Division Kota -
324001.
4. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, West Central
Railway, Kota Division Kota - 324001.
5. The CSTE, West Central Railway, West Central Railway,
Jabalpur - 482001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri A.S. Shekhawat)
YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L=
DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER=
SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36,
OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone=
7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E=
[email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
MEENA
2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30'
2
OA No. 129/2017
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present O.A. had been filed by the Applicant upon being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.08.2014, whereby the D.A. had imposed the penalty of removal from Railway service upon the Applicant; and against the order dated 08.03.2016 of the Appellate Authority vide which his appeal dated 26.12.2014 against the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him and to set aside the penalty of removal from service and the prayer for reinstatement in service had been found to be not acceptable and the penalty of removal from Railway service with immediate effect imposed by the D.A. vide impugned Order dated 06.08.2014 was held good.
2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record, the essential matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows, briefly.
The Applicant was initially appointed in the RespondentDepartment Railways as Junior Clerk and posted at Ratlam - from where he had sought inter-railway transfer on his request to the office of Chief Works Manager, Kota that had been allowed to him at bottom seniority. Later, he had also sought and had been granted mutual transfer to the Kota Division of West Central Railway, where he joined in 2006 ; and had also been promoted and posted in Kota Division as Senior Clerk. Eventually, he was working in the office of S.S.E./P.Way/Bayana and had been transferred to the office of S.S.E./Signal/Bayana,vide Order dated 22.07.2013 of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Kota Division, WCR viz. Respondent No.3. While the Applicant had been relieved from the office of S.S.E./P.Way/Bayana on 31.07.2013, he had apparently not joined the office of S.S.E./Signal/Bayana.
YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 3 OA No. 129/2017
3. Later, the Applicant had filed his nomination dated 12.11.2013 to the Returning Officer (S.D.M.), Gangapur City for election to the 90-Gangapur Assembly Constituency as the candidate of the Indian People's Green Party ; and had also consequently participated in the elections held for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly during the month of November-December 2013. In consequence, the charge-sheet dated 06.01.2014 came to be issued against the Applicantas per the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1968 [the RS(D&A) Rules-1968] and the departmental inquiry had eventually been instituted by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Kota Division, WCR i.e. the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) viz. the Respondent No.4. The Inquiry against the Applicant had been conducted ex-parte as the Applicant had not responded to the various communications from the Inquiry Officer (I.O.), who had submitted his Report dated 11.06.2014to the D.A. In turn, the D.A. had purportedly forwarded the same to the Applicant vide his letter dated 19.06.2014 seeking his representation on the same before decision by the D.A. ; however, upon non-receipt as such, the D.A. had eventually proceeded to impose the punishment of removal from service upon the Applicant ex-parte vide the impugned Order dated 06.08.2014. The Applicant had thereafter submitted his representation dated 26.12.2014 to the Chief Signal &Telecommunication Engineer (CSTE)/WCR i.e. the Appellate Authority (A.A.), viz. Respondent No.5. The said representation/appeal had come to be disposed of vide the impugned Order dated 08.03.2016 of the A.A.
4. The present O.A. had been filed by the Applicant seeking the substantive reliefs inter alia - that the chargesheet dated 06.01.2014 and consequent disciplinary proceedings along with all orders passed in pursuance thereof, the impugned punishment order dated 06.08.2014 (of the D.A.) as well as the impugned YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 4 OA No. 129/2017 order dated 08.03.2016 (of the A.A.) be quashed and set aside ; and that the Applicant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
5. It is found from the pleadings of the Applicant that he had not denied and had instead admitted explicitlyinter alia to his filing the nomination dated 12.11.2013 to the Returning Officer (S.D.M.), Gangapur City for Election to the 90-Gangapur Assembly Constituency as the candidate of the Indian People's Green Party ; and to his consequent participation in the elections held for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly during the month of November-December 2013. It had also not been shown that any intimation or clearance in this regard had been sought by him from any authority of his employer/the Respondent Department Railways.
6. On the other hand, the Applicant had vide voluminous pleadings, substantially related to his postings and transfers, sought to submitthe various grounds for challenging the Respondents actions/Orders impugned vide the present O.A. It had been submitted inter alia - that since the Applicant had been relieved from his previous office of SSE/P.Way/Bayana but had purportedly not been allowed to join at the office of SSE/Signal/Bayana to which he had been transferred, he was not a Railway employee at the time of his having contested the said election ; and also that the Applicant had submitted a request for voluntary retirement as well as an application seeking permission for contesting the election, which had not been considered by the Respondents.
Secondly, it had been submitted that the procedure for conduct of disciplinary proceedings that eventually led to the impugned Order for removal of the Applicant from service had been in YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 5 OA No. 129/2017 violation to the procedure prescribed as per the RS(D&A) Rules- 1968 and principles of natural justice, specifically in that the charge-memo had not been communicated to him and no opportunity was provided to him to submit his statement of defence ;that it had not included any list of witnesses ; that it was vague without disclosing any specific misconduct ; that the I.O. had not informed the Applicant/CO of the dates of inquiry ; that the Inquiry Report was not provided to Applicant/Charged Officer ;and that the impugned punishment Order dated 06.08.2014 was non-speaking as it assigned no reason for imposition of penalty and further was not provided to him.
Thirdly, the Applicant had sought to present inter alia - that the impugned Order dated 06.08.2014 of the D.A. had inflicted the highest penalty upon the Applicant/CO disproportionately ; that the actions/orders of the Respondents were allegedly driven by bias against him ; and that the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 of the A.A. was non-speaking and cryptic and had not discussed the grounds taken by the Applicant/CO in his appeal dated 26.12.2014.
7. Vide the reply dated 21.05.2025 on part of the Respondents, it had been submitted at the outset that the Applicant had made several submissions relating to his transfer and postings which were unnecessary and had no lis with the issues related to the disciplinary proceedings and the reliefs sought in connection with that.
At the outset the Respondents had contended that the present O.A. was not maintainable, since the Applicant had not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. Firstly, that apart from trying to serve upon the Applicant the communications related to the charge-Memo dated 06.01.2014 and the related disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents had also filed an M.A. in another YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 6 OA No. 129/2017 O.A. No.160/2014 before this Tribunal stating that the Applicant had been served with charge-sheet dated 06.01.2014 - hence the Applicant's submission that he came to know about it only when the same was pasted on the Notice Board was stated to be false on the face of it.
Moreover, the Respondents had contended that the Applicant had not only failed to rebut the charge of contesting the election without permission ; rather, vide the present O.A., he had explicitly admitted to contesting the Assembly elections in November/December-2013, when he was still in service. Those being the material grounds for the disciplinary action against the Applicant and being admitted by him, any challenge against the disciplinary action and prayers for relief vide the present O.A. were devoid of substance and deserved to be dismissed preliminarily itself. It had also been pointed out by the Respondentswhile filing the reply to the O.A., had also filed documents relating to the Applicant having further contested the Lok Sabha Election yet again in April-2014 which apart from again being done in contravention to the RS(Conduct) Rules-1968 showed his defiant attitude and also his inclination that he was not interested in Railway service - it being material, the present O.A. again deserved to be dismissed preliminarily. It had also been submitted by the Respondents vide their Reply dated 21.05.2025 that the primary ground/defence taken by the Applicant was that various communications of the Respondents related to disciplinary proceedings had not been served upon/communicated to him. This was averred to be not tenable because the Applicant had all along remained a resident of and was still residing in Gangapur City in the Quarter No.764-B in Railway Colony, in as much as - that he had filed Suit No.83/2015 before the Civil Judge, Gangapur City, for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from vacating YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 7 OA No. 129/2017 the railway quarter and had not handed over its possession still. Even the same address was mentioned in the nomination papers filed before the returning office ; and thatin correspondences with the Respondents, the Applicant had provided the same address, viz. giving the same address, i.e. Quarter No.764B, Railway Colony, Gangapurcity, while seeking information under RTI (in November 2012, September 2013, October 2013, January 2014, March 2014, May 2017, and June 2017 etc.), repliesthereto by the answering Respondents at the same address were not returned and thus were duly served on him. The Respondents had averred that all disciplinary proceeding related communications had been also made with the Applicant at the same address through registered post, but those had been returned undelivered with the remarks to the effect that the addressee was not found. The Respondents had contended that thus it was clearly proved that the Applicant had intentionally received only selected correspondences and evaded the service of the inquiry proceedings related communications, with the object of taking that as a plea and seeking relief later, which deserved to be rejected.
8. Regarding the Applicant's contention that he was not a Railway employee at the time of his having contested the said election, purportedly since he had been relieved from his previous office of SSE/P.Way/Bayana but had not been allowed to join at the office of SSE/Signal/Bayana to which he had been transferred
- the Respondents had submitted that the non-joining at his transferred place of posting was entirely due to the Applicant's own volition. In fact, the Respondents had issued several directives that in case the Applicant reported for duties, he should be allowed to join - but he had failed to report.It was further submitted that later, the Applicant had filed an O.A. No.160/2014 before this Tribunal, praying for directions to the Respondents to YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 8 OA No. 129/2017 allow him to rejoin, wherein vide interim order dated 04.04.2014, the Respondents were directed to allow the Applicant for joining in his services. However, the Applicant did not join as such again and had instead filed the Contempt Petition No. 002/2014, in respect of which the Respondents had apprised this Tribunal that he had not reported for joining ;moreoverthat since he had contested the assembly election without prior permission, disciplinary action was initiated against him - thereafter, the said Contempt Petition had been dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2014 by this Tribunal.
Further, the Respondents had contended that whether the Applicant had joined or not joined at his office of transfer/posting had no bearing upon the fact that he was still a Railway employee and was amenable to the extant Railway Service Rules. Thus, the joining or otherwise of the Applicant had no bearing on the impugned Orders, hence any challenge to those on its basis was of no relevance and deserved to be rejected.
It emerged from the foregoing that the Applicant's contention that he had not been allowed to join at the office to which he had been transferred/posted had already stood decided /settled vide the previous related litigation before this Tribunal. It was for the Applicant to show as to how that would render his status to be not of a Railway employee and thus enable him to contest an assembly election without being subject to the extant Railway Service Rules. Apart from making bald assertions, the Applicant had not made any effort to substantiate his contentions as such and had thus failed to show that during the period of his contesting an assembly election, his status was not that of a Railway employee.
9. Regarding the Applicant's contention that the Applicant had submitted requests for voluntary retirement as well as an YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 9 OA No. 129/2017 application seeking permission for contesting the election that had not been considered by the Respondents - it had been averred by the Respondents that no such representation/application seeking voluntary retirement or its withdrawal or for seeking permission for contesting the election was available in the office of the Respondents. The same had also not been presented by the Applicant along with the O.A. and even the respective dates of each of those were not mentioned in the O.A. Hence, the Applicant's submission that the Respondents did not act upon his representation/application seeking voluntary retirement or its withdrawal or for seeking permission for contesting the election was without any substance. Further, the Applicant's claim of voluntary retirement to be considered for him was moot as he was not even eligible for the same in terms of the length of his service. Nonetheless, the fact also remained that the Applicant was never allowed voluntary retirement or permission to contest the election by the Respondents - and had yet participated in the elections to the Legislative Assembly during November/December-2013. Thus, the charge against the Applicant/CO in the chargesheet dated o6.01.2014 stood admitted vide the aforesaid submissions in the O.A. It had emerged thereby that the Applicant's contention of having submitted an application for voluntary retirement to contest the Assembly Election or for being conveyed any NOC for the same, or even for withdrawing his application for voluntary retirement later, apart from the question of satisfaction of the conditions to be allowed voluntary retirement by the Applicant, was not substantiated by presenting any of those applications, even the dates of each of which had not been specified. Hence, such contentions of the Applicant were not found to be established. YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 10 OA No. 129/2017
10. Regarding the Applicant's contention that the impugned Order for removal of the Applicant from service had been passed in violation to the procedure prescribed as per the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1968 [the RS(D&A) Rules- 1968] and principles of natural justice, specifically in that related communications had not been communicated to him and opportunity to defend himself was not provided to him- the Respondents had submitted that all relevant communications had been duly addressed to the Applicant at every stage in accordance with the RS (D&A) Rules ; however, it was the Applicant who had intentionally evaded the service of those letters/notices and was now taking that as a plea and seeking relief against the disciplinary action.
To substantiate the same, the Respondents had submitted along with their reply dated 21.05.2025 the documentary evidence to show the various disciplinary proceedings related communications that had been sent to through registered post AD at his last known address - viz. Quarter No.764-B, Railway Colony, Gangapur City - but were returned undelivered and as such those were pasted on the notice board at the place of working of the Applicant. Thus, the charge memorandum dated 06.01.2014 issued for the misconduct - that was sent at the said address of the applicant at Gangapurcity through registered post AD but had returned undelivered by the postal authority with the remarks that the recipient is not available at his home- had been pasted on the notice board at the place of working of the Applicant in presence of two witnesses on 10.03.2014. Accordingly, it was treated to be deemed to be served on him. Yet the Applicant failed to present himself in pursuance thereof. Similarly, the I.O. had written to the Applicant on different dates (31.03.2014, 23.04.2014, 26.05.2014) to engage his defense assistant and to appear for inquiry on various respective dates (21.04.2014, YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 11 OA No. 129/2017 29.04.2014, 05.06.2014) -those correspondences that were sent at the said address of the Applicant, viz. Quarter No.764-B, Railway Colony, Gangapur City, through registered post AD had returned undelivered by the postal authority with the same remarks that the recipient was not available at the address. As the Applicant had failed to present himself in the inquiry, the I.O. had no option but to proceed ex-parte against the Applicant. The I.O. had later submitted his Inquiry Report dated 11.06.2014 holding the Applicant guilty of the charged misconduct. The said Inquiry Report dated 11.06.2014 was also sent to the Applicant vide letter dated 19.06.2014 asking him to submit representation against the enquiry report ; through registered post AD at the last known address of the applicant viz. Quarter No.764-B in Railway Colony, Gangapur City, but the same was again returned undelivered by the postal authority with the same remarks that the recipient was not available at the address. As such the D.A. had in agreement with the Inquiry Report passed the order of penalty dated 06.08.2014, which was also sent at the said address of the applicant, viz. Quarter No.764-B in Railway Colony, Gangapur City through registered post AD, but that had returned undelivered by the postal authority with the same remarks that the recipient was not available at the address. As such it was pasted on the notice board at the place of working in presence of two witnesses. Admittedly the Applicant got to know of the same thereby, although the Respondents had also served a copy of it through miscellaneous application in O.A. No.160/2014. However as per the admission made in the present O.A. the applicant got the information through the notice board and managed a copy of it. After receiving the same he preferred the appeal. The appellate authority after consideration passed the order dated 08.03.2016 rejecting the appeal.
YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 12 OA No. 129/2017 Further, the Respondents had also contended that although the Applicant had taken the plea that all these orders were not served upon him ; however the fact remained that he had full knowledge about the proceedings in as much as he preferred another O.A. No.796/2015 before this Tribunal citing the Orders and contents of the disciplinary proceedings - which proved that he had full knowledge of those proceedings, but he had evaded service of the letters/ notices so as to take that as a plea for relief later. Thus, it was contended that the Applicant had no reason to be aggrieved as all the disciplinary proceedings and related Orders had been passed duly and in accordance with the extant Rules. In light of the foregoing, it had emerged that the Respondent authorities had made the communication with the Applicant through registered post AD at various stages of the disciplinary proceedings. These were made at his last known address, viz. ; and that the Applicant had continuously been staying there had been shown through his use of the same for his communications with other statutory authorities, inter alia the RTI authorities under the RTI Act-1985 and the Election authorities under the Representation of the People Act-1951; and had also been contesting a Civil Suit for obtaining a permanent injunction in his favour in respect of his occupation of the said Railway Quarter and had not vacated but continued to occupy the same - all of which was before, during and after the material period of the impugned disciplinary action. Thus, in those circumstances, the Applicant's case that he had not been communicated about the disciplinary proceedings at any stage although the related communications were sent at his known address vide registered post AD could not be established ; and it would not be open to him to now plead that the said disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to not following the principles of natural justice or had been conducted in contravention of the RS (D&A) Rules- YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 13 OA No. 129/2017 1968after those were not received by him or anyone on his behalf at the said address, but returned on account of his not being found there.
11. Regarding the Applicant's contention that the impugned chargesheet had not included any list of witnesses- the Respondents had submitted that it was for the disciplinary authorities to decide how to seek to prove the charges brought against any charged officer. Thus, it had been decided to prove the charge against the Applicant of having contested an election while he had continued to be a Railway servant, on the basis of available authoritative documents which were deemed sufficient. It had also been submitted that the Applicant had not substantiated on the basis of any legal provision as to how that was illegal and arbitrary in any manner - and hence the same was without substance and deserved to be rejected. Further, the documentary evidence against the Applicant, which had been authenticated/certified by the Returning Officer (SDM) Gangapur City - viz. the Letter dated 08.11.2013 of the President of the Indian People's Green Party to the Chief Election Officer, Rajasthan regarding allowing the Applicant to use the party symbol as candidate during the ensuing election, the Form-2A of nomination dated 12.11.2013 presented by the Applicant before the Returning Officer(S.D.M.), the List of contesting candidates dated 16.11.2013 issued by the Returning Officer (S.D.M.), the Form-21(E) dated 08.12.2023 issued by the Returning Officer (S.D.M.) as the return of the election - had been found sufficient for establishing the misconduct of the Applicant ; and therefore the examination of witnesses was neither necessary, nor had been listed in the chargesheet.
Moreover, the fact that he contested the State Assembly Election without prior information/ permission of railway administration YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 14 OA No. 129/2017 which was proved by the record/ information provided by the State Government officials cannot be controverted by the Applicant therefore any challenge to the disciplinary proceedings leading to Order of penalty on the basis of not listing any witnesses to prove the same was untenable.
In the light of the same, the submissions of the Respondents - that it was upto the D.A. to decide how to prove the charge brought against the Applicant/CO ; and it had been thus decided to prove the same on the basis of authentic documents only and no witnesses had therefore been included in the Annexure-4 of the chargesheet dated 06.01.2014 - had force. Also, the Applicant had neither controverted the documents so produced as evidence nor shown how the reliance on documents listed as Annexure-3 to the chargesheet without including any witness in Annexure-4 thereto was illegal.
12. Regarding the Applicant's other contention that the impugned charge-Memo dated 06.01.2014 was non-specific - the Respondents had referred to the impugned charge-Memo to show that as per Statement of Article of charge framed vide Annexure-I thereof, the charge against the Applicant was of having contested the Assembly Election while being a Railway servant ; and also, as per the Statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the Article of charge framed vide Annexure-II thereof, the description of the related facts had been cited and the Applicant had been specifically charged with violation of Rule-3.(1).(ii) and Rule-5 of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules-1966 [the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966]. A reference to those would show that while the General Rule-
3.(1).(ii) of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966 required that every railway servant shall at all times maintain devotion to duty ; the Rule-5 thereof was specifically on the subject of 'Taking part in YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 15 OA No. 129/2017 politics and elections' ; and had inter alia incorporated as follows -
5. Taking part in politics and elections. --(1) No railway servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.
......
(4) No railway servant shall canvass, otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority.
......
Railway Ministry's decision.--(3) Political neutrality of Railway servants--It is essential that Railway servants should not only maintain political neutrality but should also appear to do so and they should not participate in the activities of, or associate themselves with any organization in respect of which there is the slightest reason to think that the organization has a political aspect or with organisations banned by the Government.
(E (D & A) 69 GS1-25 dt. 31-1-1970). ; (NS Policy/19 dt. 11-3-1976). The facts of the present case recorded in the Annexure-II of the charge-Memo dated 06.01.2014 were inter alia that the Applicant had filed his nomination form dated 12.11.2013 before the Returning Officer Gangapur City to contest the Rajasthan Assembly Elections-2013 for the 90-Gangapur Assembly Constituency on the ticket of Indian Peoples Green Party ; and had further actually contested the said Election where he obtained 469 votes. In light of the same, the specific charge of violation of Rule-5 of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966had been brought against the Applicant vide the charge-Memo dated 06.01.2014. Also, from perusal of the extant Rules as cited above, it emerged inter alia - that the Rule-5(1) of the RS-(Conduct) Rules-1966 categorically prohibited any Railway servant from any political association with any political party or any organization which takes part in politics and from any political activity ; that the Rule-5(4) of the RS-(Conduct) Rules-1966 mandates that no YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 16 OA No. 129/2017 Railway servant shall canvass or interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority ; and that the Railway Ministry decision (3) below the Rule-5 of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966 also required maintaining political neutrality at all times by any Railway servant.
In light of the foregoing, the contention that the charge-Memo dated 06.01.2014 which was issued against the Applicant was non-specific was not borne out ; to the contrary, it was found that it had been issued on the specific charge of violation of Rule-5 of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966 - which inter alia prohibited a Railway servant from political activity ; and mandated that a Railway servant shall not canvass or interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority ; and also vide the decision thereunder mandated any Railway servant to maintain political neutrality at all times.
13. Regarding the Applicant's other contention that the impugned punishment Order dated 06.08.2014 was cryptic/non- speaking as it assigned no reason for imposition of penalty- the Respondents had submitted that the Inquiry Officer, while conducting the inquiry as per rules ex-parte, found that the applicant/CO had been duly provided the opportunity to participate in the inquiry, but had not participated due to which ex-parte proceedings had be conducted; that from the authenticated document provided by the returning officer (SDM) Gangapur city, the applicant/CO had contested the assembly election 2013 from 90-Gangapur City constituency on the ticket and symbol of the Indian People Green Party and had polled 469 votes ; that the applicant/CO had contested the said assembly election as the candidate of a political party without obtaining any YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 17 OA No. 129/2017 permission/NOC etc. Hence, it was concluded by the I.O. that since the applicant/CO had contested the assembly election 2013 from 90-Gangapur City constituency on the ticket and symbol of the Indian People Green Party without obtaining any permission/NOC, the allegations made in the chargesheet vide Standard Letter-5 dated 06.01.2014 were proved against the Applicant/CO. Therefore, considering the available documents and the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the D.A. had stated his findings as follows -
" I reviewed the entire matter. Employee Shri Dharmi Meena, Senior Clerk, Bayana, while being a railway servant, participated in the Assembly Elections 2013 without prior notice and without administrative permission and filed his nomination papers on 12.11.2013 before the Returning Officer, Gangapur City, on the ticket of Indian People's Green Party from 90 Gangapur City Assembly Constituency and Standard Letter-5 dated 06.01.2014 was issued on the charge of contesting the Rajasthan Assembly Elections 2013 with the election symbol 'Kite'. An investigating officer was appointed as per the rules to investigate the above allegations. The investigating officer issued a first notice on March 31, 2014, summoning you for investigation on April 21, 2014. The information was provided by registered post, but the return was returned undelivered with the District Postal Authority's request. The Inquiry Officer issued a second notice through a registered AD letter dated 23.04.2014, setting the date for the inquiry as 29.04.2014, but you did not appear for the inquiry even then. The Inquiry Officer issued a third and final notice through a registered letter dated 26.05.2014, setting the date for the inquiry as 05.06.2014, but you did not appear for that either. The date was fixed, but you did not appear." ... ...
In pursuance, the D.A. had found the employee guilty of the charge as per the chargesheet dated 06.01.2014 ; and accordingly had proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from railway service with immediate effect upon the Applicant/CO.
In light of the foregoing the penalty Order dated 06.08.2014 was not found to be cryptic or arrived at without application of mind by the concerned D.A. ; but was adequately speaking and reasoned and had been issued by keeping in view the available YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 18 OA No. 129/2017 documents and the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thus was not illegal in any way
14. Regarding the Applicant's other contention that the penalty Order dated 06.08.2014 had inflicted the highest penalty upon the Applicant/COdisproportionately- the Respondents had submitted that the level of penalty was to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case by the concerned Disciplinary authority. In the present case, not only had the Applicant proceeded to contest the election while being in Railway service, he had not joined in the office where he had been posted - either before or after contesting the said Assembly election. Moreover, , it had been shown from the documents brought on record vide the Reply to the O.A. that the Applicant had further contested the elections for the Lok Sabha-2014 from the Dausa Lok Sabha constituency of Rajasthan held in April-2014, again without resigning or intimating of that in any other way to the Respondents - wherein he had purportedly declared his own profession as 'Labour' apparently to bypass the requirement of not holding any office of profit, which corroborated the continued political alignment/intent of the Applicant apart from it being in violation and continued defiance of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966. The learned Counsel for the Applicant had at the stage of final hearing sought to rely on the authority of the Judgment / Order dated 29.03.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay in WP No.4395 of 2021 in the case of Swati Bhalchandra Nilegaonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2023:BHC-AS:10249-DB] whereby the Hon'ble High Court had partly allowed the said Writ Petition and inter alia set aside the penalty of removal from service after the Applicant therein having rendered 26 years of service ; and remitted the disciplinary proceedings to the D.A. for the limited purpose of reduction of penalty. Upon perusal, the said authority YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 19 OA No. 129/2017 was distinguishable in that the Applicant therein had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from service before filing her nomination and contesting the election - whereas in the case of the Applicant vide the present O.A., the making of an application for VRS before filing his nomination had not been shown before us ; further the Applicant therein had rendered 26 years of qualifying service and was entitled to voluntary retirement had she applied for the same with sufficient advance notice - whereas in the case of the Applicant vide the present O.A., apart from the making of an application for voluntary retirement from service before filing his nomination not being shown before us, his length of service was also nonetheless insufficient to grant him that, even if he was to apply for the same with sufficient advance notice. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that in the circumstances the punishment imposed by the D.A. would not be one that would shock the conscience and call for any interference on part of this Tribunal to remit it back to the disciplinary authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed.
15. Regarding the Applicant's other contention allegedly that alleged the actions/orders of the Respondents were driven by bias against him- the Respondents had submitted that while the Applicant had linked to his transfer/postings that were not to his liking as institutional bias, particularly by naming one B.N. Meena, Chief Personnel Officer. However, the routine transfers and postings and the disciplinary proceedings are quite distinct - and the officer allegedly biased against the Applicant was in no way connected or to the D.A., Inquiry Authority and A.A., who were separate and independent and had in no way been influenced by the said officer or any other official or anyone else even if non- official.
YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 20 OA No. 129/2017 It is a well settled position in law that mere usage of such an expression is not sufficient unless it is supported by a substantial foundation of facts ; and that the burden of establishing mala-fide is very heavy on the person who alleges it ; and that the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. No credible proof of the allegations made of the bias and malafide on part of the I.O. or the D.A. or the A.A. had been offered by the Applicants. On the other hand, the Respondents had submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant had been conducted as per the extant RS(D&A) Rules- 1968 as much as possible, despite the Applicant not cooperating in the related Inquiry and other steps of the said disciplinary proceedings.
It was thus shown that the allegations of bias against the Applicant were not backed by any credible proof. Such unsubstantiated allegations, made by the Applicant were per se unmaintainable.
16. Regarding the Applicant's other contentionthe impugned appellate order dated 08.03.2016 of the A.A. was non-speaking and cryptic- the Respondents had submitted that the settled position of law in this regard as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court was that the appellate authority need not give fresh reasons when it agrees with the inquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority. In any case, the A.A. had passed its order dated 08.03.2016, after consideration of the appeal and the documents on the subject file, along with its specific observations, inter alia that his act to contest State Assembly Election without prior intimation to/permission of Railway Administration was gross disrespect of D&AR rules which the Applicant was expected to ensure as an employee ; that despite proving opportunities for representing his case during inquiry proceedings, the Applicant YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 21 OA No. 129/2017 did not not attend the same, which act on his part apart from showing irresponsible attitude towards his duties also showed that his contention that he had been denied fair and reasonable opportunity to represent his case was not correct ; and that the documents to demonstrate that the Applicant had contested election (while serving as Railway employee) are from records/information provided by responsible officials of State Government, which were thus considered reliable and sufficient. Further, the Applicant had admitted to the substantive charge of contesting the election without prior permission. Thus, any submission that the A.A. did not enter into the cause of the matter so as to render its Order cryptic and thereby to attribute illegality to it on such technical basis was an afterthought on part of the Applicant that deserved to be rejected. In light of the foregoing, it had been found that the appellate Order dated 08.03.2016 was not cryptic or arrived at without application of mind by the concerned A.A.; but was instead arrived at by considering the material before the said authority and was adequately speaking and reasoned.
17. We had carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties on record. The arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties had also been heard and the authority of the Judgment / Order dated 29.03.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay in WP No.4395 of 2021 in the case of Swati Bhalchandra Nilegaonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2023:BHC-AS:10249-DB]
18. In the conspectus of the examination of the same as foregoing, it had been found in respect of the contentions made by the Applicant vide the present O.A. thatthe Applicant's contention of not being allowed to join at the office to which he had been transferred/posted had already stood decided /settled YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 22 OA No. 129/2017 vide the previous related litigation before this Tribunal. It was for the Applicant to show as to how that would render his status to be not of a Railway employee and thus enable him to contest an assembly election without being subject to the extant Railway Service Rules. Apart from making bald assertions, the Applicant had not made any effort to substantiate his contentions as such and had thus failed to show that during the period of his contesting an assembly election, his status was not that of a Railway employee.
Also, it had been found that the Applicant's contention of having submitted an application for voluntary retirement to contest the Assembly Election or for being conveyed any No Objection Certificate if at all admissible for the same, or even for withdrawing the voluntary retirement application later, apart from the question of satisfaction of the conditions to be allowed voluntary retirement for the Applicant, was not substantiated by presenting any copies or record of those applications, even the dates of each of which had not been specified. Hence, such contentions of the Applicant were not established.
19. Further, it was found that the Respondent authorities had made the communication with the Applicant through registered post AD at various stages of the disciplinary proceedings. These were made at his last known address, viz. Quarter No.764-B, Railway Colony, Gangapur City ; and that the Applicant had continuously been staying there had been shown through his use of the same for his communications with other statutory authorities, inter alia the RTI authorities under the RTI Act-1985 and the Election authorities under the Representation of People's Act ; and had been contesting a Civil Suit for obtaining a permanent injunction in his favour in respect of his occupation of the said Railway Quarter - all of which was before, during and after the material period of the impugned disciplinary action. At YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 23 OA No. 129/2017 the same time, the aforesaid communications related to the disciplinary proceedings sent to the same address via registered post AD had not been received by him and were returned with the remarks of Postal Department that the addressee was not available ; and had thereafter been displayed on the Notice Board of the Office of his posting. Thus, in those circumstances, the Applicant's case that he had not been communicated about the disciplinary proceedings at any stage could not be established to be due to Respondents not following the prescribed procedure duly,but in the facts presented would preponderantly be probably due to the Applicant or any one on his behalf not receiving the related communications ; and it would not be open to him to now plead that the said disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-communication of various correspondences at different stages of the disciplinary proceedings by the Respondents and thereby due to not following the principles of natural justice or due to being in contravention of the RS (D&A) Rules-1968.
20. Moreover, in respect of the other contentions of the Applicant, it had been found inter alia -that it was upto the D.A. to decide how to prove the charge brought against the Applicant/CO and it had been thus decided to prove the same on the basis of authentic documents only and no witnesses had therefore been included in the Annexure-4 of the chargesheet dated 06.01.2014 and also, the Applicant had neither controverted the documents so produced as evidence nor shown how the reliance on documents listed as Annexure-3 to the chargesheet without including any witness in Annexure-4 thereto was illegal ; that the penalty Order dated 06.08.2014 was not cryptic or arrived at without application of mind by the concerned D.A. but was adequately speaking and reasoned and had been issued by keeping in view the available documents and the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thus was not illegal in any way YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30' 24 OA No. 129/2017 ; that in the factual circumstances of the present case the punishment imposed by the D.A. would not be one that would shock the conscience and call for any interference on part of this Tribunal to remit it back to the disciplinary authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed ; that the allegations of bias against the Applicant on part of the Respondents were not backed by any credible proof, so those unsubstantiated allegations, made by the Applicant were per se unmaintainable ; and that the appellate Order dated 08.03.2016 was not cryptic or arrived at without application of mind by the concerned A.A., but was instead arrived at by considering the material before the said authority and was passed in an adequatelyspeaking and reasoned manner.
20. Therefore, we hold that the Applicant had failed to substantiate his case vide the present O.A. and we did not find that the actions/Orders of the Respondents - that for issuing of the charge-Memo dated 06.01.2014, that for imposing the penalty vide Order dated 06.08.2014 of the D.A. and that for disposal of the Applicant's appeal vide appellate Order dated 08.03.2016 of the A.A. - were required to be interfered with. Consequently we also hold that the Applicant was not entitled to the other reliefs prayed for vide the present O.A. We order accordingly.
21. Hence, the present O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ysm/
YOGENDRA YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=DHOLPUR, L= DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= SINGH 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273119b94c2e919248, E= [email protected], CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA MEENA 2026.03.05 17:57:06+05'30'