Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Swati Bhalchandra Nilegaonkar vs M/O Railways on 13 March, 2019
j Od No.2 72/2027
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAT BENCH, MUMBAT
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.172/2017
Dated "BAS Wledaesdathe 1a" Bay o£ March, 2018
CORAM: DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
RAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER (3)
smt. Swati Bhalchandra Nilegaonkar
&ge G1 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Working was as Assistant Nurs sing
Officer, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Hospital, Central Railway,
Byculla, Mumbai ~ 400 027
aed
ANG presently residing at
Flat No.2, Nathpriyma Apartment,
Mayour Bunglow, Opp. Railway Line,
Solapur ~ 4713 001,
state of Maharashtra 1. Applicant
{ By Advocate Shri Ankush B. Hotkar}
¥
_ VERSUS
i. Union of Indie
Through the General Manager,
Central Railway, Headquarters
Office, CST, Mumbai - 4009 Goi,
2. The General Manager,
Central Railway, Headquarters
Office, CST, Mumbai -- 40G Gor,
3. Joint Secretary/Rstt.It,
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi ~ 110 oo2.
4, Divisional Railway Manager
aire)
Central Ralliway, CST, Mumbei
Pin Code - 400 O01,
2. Medical Birecter/Chief Medical
Director, Dr. Babassheb A
Central Rallway Hospital,
Byculla, Mumbai ~.400 OO7. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri R.R. Shetty}
2 Od No. I P2017
ORDER
Per: Ravinder Kaur, MEMBER (7) The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative et ~ Tribunals Act, S85 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a This Hon'ble Tribunal he pleased to call for the records and preceedings which led te the passing of the impugned orders dated 24.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 ax per Advice letter dated 17.08.2015 issued by UPSC in the Appeal dated 28.03.2013 filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble President of India against order dated 06.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rule 1968 filed against the applicant by the respondent No.2 and after considering this constitutional, propriety, legality and validity and genuineness thereof be quashed and set aside impugned orders and VRS given by the applicant is valid and binding upon the respondents.
(h) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to pay with all retirement benefits namely outstanding payment of salary, Pension, gratuity and other dues with extra work dane by the applicant after VRS and as per request made by the respondents to continue work © after VRS till sanctioning the same and other benefits with interest at 18% p.a. from the date af VRS including Railway passes as per grade of the applicant.
fc} Any other and further reliefs as ta this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper may be passed in the circumstances of the case and in the interest af justice."
a. The facts are that the applicant was ta working with respondent No.5 as Assistant ' was fw et 7 + . . , reel lage ey sew ye Nursing Officer. She was removed fram service ae by the respondents vide imouqned orders on the 3 G4 No 1? 22017 compigint filed by her rivals. She was initially appointed in the Railway Hospital at Le Selapur on 01.12.1983 ag Public Health Nurse and thereafter she was posted at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial Hospital at Byculia, Mumbai to the post of Assistant Nursing Officer on 28.08.2002. It is stated that she had completed cf hex qualifying service of 24 years with respondent No.5 and since her son is suftering from Puberculosis Pleural effusion with peritoneal effusion and is in need of sonstant attention, the applicant decided to take voluntary retirement to look after him. She tendered her application dated 16.09.2009 (Annex A-5) to the respondents stating that due to unavoidable domestic vroblems, she was unable to continue her services and requested for voluntary retirement. She nas placed an record the disabllity certificate dated 02.02.2012 of her. son showing that he is fh suffering from 85% mental retardation after he or a Was examined by committee of expert Docta General Hospital, Ratnagiri. After she tendered her application for Voluntary retirement, she did not attend her duty and waited for release a of her retirement benefits. 2,2 it is stated by the applicant that at LAG relevant time it was certod of State Assembly elections and it was aA mere con- incidence that the applicant was offered a 4 ticket of MLA election by Republican Party of India {RPT} for contestin iq election for Khed iB Alandi constituency as there was no other female. candidate for reserved candidates in assembly election. The national policy of Women's Empowerment had taken a boost as such the applicant had decided £0 accept the same and filled up nomination form on 24.09.2009.
2.2 The apolicant claima that it is the duty and obligations of the respondents to allow her application for voluntary retirement dated entire retirement a.
ct (D fe G font FF fu 7 © oy @ rm 16.09.2009 an benefits. However, instead of releasing her retir ~ement benefits and relieving her from service w.e.f. 16.08.2009, the respondent No.4 issued letter dated 12.21.2009 {Annex A-#8} ta the effect that their office Was under process for collection of details of her qualifying service from Sr. DEM and acceptance of Competent Authordiy i.e. CBO, CSTM and told her to attend daily duty routine at Byculla GH No. P72 /2017 5 Od Nod P2202 7 from the competent authe iby. On the basis of this letter, the applicant in good faith joined ber duty on 16.11.2009 without pretudic ce to her u right and contentions as made in appiiocation mot recelve any sanction letter either from the competent authority. or Divisional Railway Manager. Later on, She received letter dated C¥4 RO Xs a ho BO wo < tO en oo mo He) re] oa 3 } oa Pt, my ty 8 respondent No. whereby she was informed that a complaint was recéived against her and she was required to » q co QS jtself. She *.
attan ph the inquiry on $8.12 .% attended the inquiry whereby she was questioned with regard to her contesting State Assembly Elections 26695 and if soa, whether she had taken any permission from the Competent Authority. she admitted that she had contested the election without taking any permission but under the impression that since her application for voluntar retirement from service was forwarded on 16.09.2008, she assumed that she was free from the service. In this inquiry, she also admitted that she had received a letter from the DRM, BB and was also told by Chief Physician Dr S.B. Gupta to join duty till she gets retirement letter.
2.3 ft is further stated that she had taken leave from 22.09.2009 onwards. Thereafter, she attended her duty till sanctioning of her VRS. che has placed on record the minutes of the fact finding committees dated 28.12.2009 as Annex A-1¢ letter dated 29.12.2009 {Amnex A-11} in reference ta letter dated £4.12.200 % A~il2}) issued by respondent No.4, the applicant was directed fo submit property returns for the years 2005 to 2008. Consequentiy, she filed the 2.4 . The preliminary inquiry was conducted against the applicant on 28.01.2010, an extract Of its report has placed on record as Annex A~
13. She was served with Memorandum dated S1.08.2010 (Annex A-14) by espondent No. proposing to hold an enquiry against her under Rule © of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeaaly Rules, L868 with the following Statement of Articles of Charge:-
"Article I: She fas contested Assembly Election fram Constituency No.197 (Rhed- Alandi) of Maharashtra State on £3,10.2008 without intimation to te Rallway Administration.
Article 1: She has not intimated the purchase of immoveabie which were sent to her vide covering Thereafter, vide letter dated 3O.7T2.2009 (Annex © 7 Od No [iS 0l?
Property of Rs. 25, 00,000" which is mentioned in her name, in the nomination form submitted to returning officer, Khed Constituency. Intimation of purchase of immovable property is mandatory as per Conduct Rule 18. She failed to subynis her APR for the vear 2005 to 2009 in time and submitted the same ina bulk on 09.01.2010 after vigilance investigation, Article 1: She has submitted private Medical C ertificate, for the period of absence from 24.08.2009 ta 08.09. 2009, Ay per Medical Manual, PMC is not permitted in case af Gazetted Officers. She had been absent from work for long periods during August-09 to October-09, without getting her leave sanctioned. She also did net have leave balance. in her account, however she received full payment during this period, Thus by the aforesaid acis of amission and cormmission, Smt Swati Bkalchandra Nilegaonkar has Jailed ta maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and behaved in a manner of unbecoming of a Railway servant and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3¢1)(i}, Gi) & fii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. She has also contravened Rule 3 & 18 (1) of Railway Services (Conduct Rules, 1966."
+3 he applicant submitted her defence brief hae O ou "et oH ® dated 21.12.2011 (Annex A-16) and deni charges framed against har. 2.5 Vide Inguiry report dated 30.12.2011 ~ , the articles of charge I and x oni See sAnnex A-1) charge II were established whereas article of charge III was partly established. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued Memorandum ated 11.04.2012 {Annex A-18} whereby he agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of Articles ef charge I and IT but dia 8 in respec OF not agree with his Findin article charge III and while giving reasons 8 OA Ne. £7 2/3017 _ ox disagreement was of the view that article
2. fated 04.05.2012 (Annex A-20}. Thereafter the o Disciplinary Authority vide impugned order dated 06.02.2013 {Annex A-3}imposed on the %B pplicant penalty of removal from service.
M Against this order, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 28.03.2013. (Annex A-21} before .
India. The advice of UPSC was rth the Presiden £ of sought in the matter which was given vide Letter dated 17.04.2015 (Annex A-2) and thereafter the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2015 vide Annex A-~i the impugned order. Thereafter vide letter dated 12.12.2015 (Annex A-22} the applicant approached the Minister of Railways, Government of India, New CS Delhi to set aside the penalty of removal from service and to reinstate her. However, she did not receive any reply to the same. 2.6 The applicant haa challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds + fl} That a false and fabricated complaint was Tiled against he er by her vivals and that there was no misconduct on her part mor any fault was cammitted by her.
D ® 9 04 No PP2e0r?
mrt t The imougned. orders a ree Ce al oe te edgar i erroneou bad an law and without application of mind.
® f1i23 The apoellate authorities failed te conmeider that the applicant had tendered VRS application on 16.09.2009 to the respondents from her service due to domestic problem.
ine concerned authorities failed to ots bes =) oo 4 eet ae consider that after VRS the applicant did mot attend her duty and at the relevant period tnere was election of State Assambly and the said election was contested by the applicant by filling up nomination form on 24.09.2009 as she had already tendered VRS I 8 application to the respondent on 16.99.26 oo e o The concerned authorities also failed to os a ~ th consider that even after the applicant lo £ im the said asse eubly election, she did not attend her duty as she was under the impression that her VRS would be sanctioned and she would be relieved from service after releasing her entire retirement benefits from the date of tendering said VRS application.
"
(vi) The concerned authorities also. failed to consider that the respondent has issued 10 O24 No.1 722017 letter dated 12.11.7009 oe to the applicant thereby requesting the applicant to attend her duty kill sanction of said VRS application from higher authorities.
Accordingly, the applicant attended her duty subjech to sanctioning of the said VRS application. However, the said VRS application is not sanctioned.
(wii) That the authorities failed to consider that the applicant should have been relieved from service from the date of filing the application for voluntary retirement on 16.09.2009 and that for centesting the application on (24, 09.2008 when she was not on duty, no permission from the respondents was required. | {viii} That the respondents did not comment on the issue of VRS application tendered by the applicant on 16.09.2005 and if the VRS iS granted on 16.09.2009 and the provisions of Rule 67 para 2 Pansion Rules, 1993 are taken into consideration, then the applicant is deemed to have voluntarily vetired from the date of application and she was not required to attend her duty.
® i Od No. if2al?
{ix} Regarding her non-filing of the Property returns within time, it is claimed that due to intensive nature of her duty, she could not file the ame with the a] respondents.
tq {x} Regarding article of charge TIT it i stated that the medical certificate was issued by the MD and not by PNC.
3. Alongwith the OA, MA No.203/2017 seeking sy condonation of delay has also been filed. The only ground on which the spplicant is seekin BE ify condonation of delay of 5 months is that after a5 LD A co 7 fs3 ae) Nh receipt of the impugned order dated ~O7~% vide covering letter dated O7 08.2015, she had sent letter dated 12.12.2015 to the Minister of Railways, Government af india, New Delhi to leok inte the matter and pass an appropriate order. However, she Walted for the reply to the said letter which she never got and consequently there was delay in filing the present OA, The respondents have filed detailed oi affidavit in reply.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by Shri Ankush B. Hotkar, learned counsel far the b applicant and Shri R.R. Shetty, learned 2 QA No. 873/017 counsel for the respondents and have gone through the materials available on record, &. The respondents have submitted that the "
applicant had contes oF £49) ed the Assembly Election from Khed Alandi Constituency on 13.10.2009 when she was in service | based on her application. for voluntary retirement dated ot.
bo oyoluntarily pa oy bh rate C2 oa) x bet cr Hi a 23 int ° a é Sh retire. her on reasons of domestic problems.
The applicant never waited to find out as ta whether her application for VRS was accepted or otherwise. Further, the voluntary retirement could take effect only wpon £ completion of three months fram the date of request 2.@. 3 months from 15.09.2009 which is Tv .l2,2008, Whereas the applicant had already filed her nomination on 24.09.2009 and contested the Assembly Election an i3S.TOQ.2008., Thus the applicant had clearly violated Rule a of the Rallway Services (Conduct) Rules, 2966.
submitted that the a % $ tA
7. Ft is furt o ti rain © vigilance branch initiated the case a¢ the applicant on the basis of complaint and ter investigation Feport, departmental Pty a proceedings were conducted. That the charges against the applicant have been proved on the @ basis of overwhelming evidence against her which invites no Penalty other than removal from service. That the order of penalty imposed dees not warrant any interference at the hands of this Tribunal as this Tribunal in its power of judicial review can only envisage whether the procedure is properly followad in holding the enquiry and the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with.
ft is submitted that the Hen'ble Supreme Court Judgments has held that when _ hy in a catena of the statutory rules so framed for conduct of disciplinary proceedings are quasi judicial in nature, the same are not open to scrutiny by a court of law to reassess the evidences on record and arrive at an altogether different conclusion unless it shocks the conscience o the Court.
& The respondents have submitted that the application of the applicant for "voluntary retirement could only take effect on completion of three months from the date of Somes to Ch request 2.6. From 16.09.2009 which 17.12.2009. That prior to that wide letter hh 2009, the respondents had advised ped dated 12.13 the applicant to attend ts daily duty till 4 Od Na, 17272017 date ar receipt of competent authority's Sanction to voluntary retirement request which was under process. The apolicant filed her candidature .fer contesting the election on 24.03.2009 during the voluntary retirement notice period without awaiting acceptance ection of her said applicetion and without fre oh intimation .to the Railway Administration. In fact she had sought voluntary retirement on account of domestic issues but actually she contested the Assembly election.
al 6 @ it Co ety 8, AS p G record, the applicant Hospital at e
i) D t je Be = fi ct was appointed in th Solapur on 01.32.1983 as Public Health Nurse.
she applied for voluntary retirement fron eervice vide application dated 16.08.2009 HY DQ.
fAnnex A-5}. As such, on 16.08.2009 she h qualified service of less than 26 years. The contention of the applicant is that when she applied for voluntary retirement, she had completed 30 years qualified service is incorrect statement on affidavit. In this manner she has not only tried to mislead the 'respondents but also this Tribunal. Rule o7 of Rallway Services (Sension} Rules 1893 is apolicabie to the wresent ease and is © 15 OS Nod 722017 reproduced as under for hetter understanding:~-
"@7. Retirement on completion of 20 years gualifving service ~ (1) At any time after a railway servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to appointing authority retire from service.
Provided that this railway servant including Sc is -
s sub-rule shall not apply to a lentists or technical expert who GU) ceeecces (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-
rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the said period.
(3)(@) A railway servant referred to in sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on meriis and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the railway servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three moths.
(SB). ceesccreenees (B)occesconne id, Rule 67 thus clearly lays down that a a Railway servant after he completes 20 years of + Yr voluntary req a2 pl at hee b.
re HAS qualifying service, can a retirement by giving notice of not less than three months in writing. However, a notice is 16 Od No J? 2 2017 required to be accepted by the "Appointing Authority. It is alse previded that where the Appointing Authority does not refuse te grant the permission for retirement before the expiry ar notice period, > in those circumstances the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. The plea of the applicant that since She had applied for voluntary retirement on 16.09.2003, therefore, it 'was obligatory on the respondents te relieve her from service from the said date itself, Ls of no consequence in view of Rule 67 referred to above. Merely by submitting application of voluntary retirement, a Railway employee Ls not relieved from service as it is the on of the Appointing Authority to ib.
discret:
8accept or refuse voluntary retirement. before the expiry of the notice period. In case neither it is accepted nor refused before the ry of notice period, the retirement he SZpt becomes effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In the present case, the applicant applied for Voluntary retirement on 16.09.2003 and therefore she was required to Wait For the acceptance or refusal at @ ei O48 No LER S01?
permission for voluntary retirement guring tha period of notice. In case she was not communicated scceptarnce or refusal tO grant es the permission before expiry of the notice od, she would have retired from the dates a of expiry of the said period, hich in the Present case would have been 15/16.12.2009, It 28 admitted case that on 24,909. 2608 2 rf © applicant filled her nomination form and on 13.10.2003 she contested the Assembly Election
4. My from Conetituency No.i9? {Khed~Alandi} G Maharashtra. Till that time the period of notice had net expired and she continued to be o LM service and is thus guilty of contesting he the election without any intimation to the Railway Administration. In the ciroumstances, the plea of the applicant that she had applied for VRS on 16.09.2009 as such she was relieved from service w.e.f. that date itself is of ne consequence. Moreover, the applicant herself has admitted in the OA that after issuance of notice on 16.09.2009, she proceeded on leave wee. Pf. 22.99.2009 and then again joined office on 16.11.2009. This itself shows that she was Very much aware that she was still in service &€S period of netics for vwolunta (ry retirement i8 Od No fF 2/2017 had not expired. The applicant vide her vague pleas has tried to mislead not only the respondents but this Tribunal as well.
id. The applicant participated in the preliminary enquiry, held on 28.01.2010 which is on record as Annex A-1i3 wherein she has categorically admitted that she had contested the Maharashtra Assembly Election 2009 from Constituency No. 197 Khed-Alandi of Pune District for which she had filled nomination ee Form on 24.09.2009.
i2. In reply to question as to whether she had infermed Railway Administration before contesting the Assembly Election, the applicant very cleverly gave reply that before contesting the said Election she had submitted wa her VRS. Indirectly it is admitted by her that she had not informed the "Railway Administration in this regard. Ever in response to Memorandum dated 31.08.2010. {Annex FRy A-14), the applicant gave her defence brie deted 21.12.2011 (Annex A-16} wherein she has categorically admitted that after she tenderad ication on 16.89.2009, the feo her YRS app Assembly Election in > oa declared and being actively involved in social SES 19 G4 Not Pae20l?
work and due to National Policy ef "Women Empowerment" she was offered a ticket from RPT (Ridolos) far mtesting the Election from Khed Alandi sonatvenene ¥ and as she had * reaay tendered her VRS on 16.09.2069 and she 4 $B fens a o.
5not received any negative communicatio from Administration, she accepted the offer of 23, The perusal of the application dated x i¢.09.2009 'Annex. A-5) moved by the applicant w iD B 4 voluntary retirement shows that she had sought her voluntary retirement w.e.f.
31.12.2002 on the grounds of domestic Li G er par) problems. The contents of this applica itself show that she was well aware of the fact that three months notice was required to ie be given to the Appointing Authority for obtaining VRS and that she herself had sought ts voluntary etirement w.e.f. 32.12.2009 ana thus she was well aware of the fact that on 24.09.2009 when she filled her nomination form far contesting the Election, she was still in service. Therefore it does not lie in her for VRS on 16.09.2009, she was relieved from Lf Liself cr ryt iB ta 2 q o & © So cr ny oy:
ct an @ he * 0 OA No.1 72/2017 a4. The departmental enquiry report {Annex Ani?) has been perused and it is observed that ail the facts and circumstances have been duly taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer and it is observed in the report that though the applicant in her application fer VRS had mentioned the ground as domestic problem but in fact she was physically ih ox the Assembly Election in Nhed-
canvassing Alandi Conshituency. Tt a8 clearly in q Violation of Rule 5 of Railway Services {Conduct} Rules, 1966. Rule S of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 is reproduced as follows 0 "6 i "3. Taking part in politics and electians:-
(i) No railway servant shall be a member of or be otherwise associated with any pollfical party or any organisation which takes part in politics nor shall he lake part in, subseribe in aid of or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.
(2) Ht shail be the duty of every railway servant to endeavor fo prevent ary member of his family from taking part in, Subseribing in aid, of or assisting in any other manner any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be subversive of the Government as by laws established and where a railway servant is unable to prevent a member of hix family from taking part in, ar subscribing in aid of ar assisting in any other manner, any such movement or activity, fe shall make a report to that effect to the Groverninent, (3) Jf any question arises whether a party is a political party or whether any organixation takes part in politics or whether any movement or activity falls within the scope of sub-
rule(2) the decision of the Government thereon shall be Final, .
(4) No railway servant shall canvass, otherwise interfere D web:
21 Od No. 172/2017with, or use his influence in connection with op take port i91, an election to any legislature or local osthavity, Provided that --
() @ railway servant qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he prepases to vote or has voted: .
"Dp a railvay servant shall not he deemed to have contravened the provisions of this sub-rule by reason only that he assists in the canduct of an election in the performance of a duty imposed om him by or under any lew for the time being in force.
Explanation: The display by a railway servant on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shail amount to using his Influence in connection with an election within the meaning of this sub-ryle Railway Ministry's decision: (2) Ratiway servants wishing io join the Bharat Sevak Samaj? skould obtain prior permission from the Head of the Department. This permission will nat, however, absolve them from the observance, at all times, of the rules and instructions relating jo the conduct ane behaviour of the Railway servant, (E(DE&AG4 GS 1-4 dt. 27.5, 1964) Railway Ministry's decision:- f2) The Railway servants should not only be impartial but they should appear to be impartial in relation to the elections. T hey should nat take part in any election campaign nor should they canvass. They should always take scrupulous care not to lend their MEUMES, official position of authority to assist one Broup as against another, Any disregard of these instructions will be considered as serious act of indiscipline. Their attention ix drawn to the provisions in section 134-4 of the Representation of the People Act, 195] which reads as under: "Tf any person in the service of the Government, acts as an election agent or a polling agent or a counting agent of a candidate at an election he shall be punishable with Lnprisonment for a term which may extend up to 3 months or with fine or with bath". (E(DEA)G6 GSI-1 3 dt.27, 12.1966) Railway Ministry's decisian:- (3) Political neutrality of Railway servants - It is essential that Raibvay servants should not-only maintain political neutrality but should also appear to do sa and they should not participate in the activities of, or associate themselves with any OF ZANISCTON in respect of which there is the slightest reason to think thoi the organisation as a political aspect or with organisations 22 G4 No dP 2/2017 banned by the Government, D&A J69 GSI-25 eff. SEL E970) (NS Pollowi? dt 113.1976) ° is. thus it is clear from Rule 5S of Railway vo shat a Railwer ¥ We os os ct Senge Coe ae ei eee on x yy dy pede y Services {Conduct} Rules, 2 ade * Servant cannot associate with any political party or any organisation which takes part in rented from taking Ss. He/she is also pre Lied ia) o bot Ch of a Part in any manner, in any political movement ox activity. A Railway servant also cannot canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his anfluence in connection with an election te any Legislature or any local party. Rule 5 sub rule (2) has even gone to the extent that a Railway servant shall make all possible endeavour to prevent his family members also from taking part in, subscribing in aid, of ar '@Ssisting in any other manner any movement or activity which directly or indirectly is subversive of the Government by Law established. If the Rallway servant is unable to prevent his family member from any such movement = or ACLAVILY, ne is required mandatorily to submit a report te this effect to the Government.
26. Thus there is no doubt that the applicant has violated Rule 5 of Railway a Od Not 22/2017 bh ao.
heed Se) XS Oy s tm cr pea Ct i th Services iConduch} Bules, against the applicant has been proved on record by sufficient evidence and ineluding her own admission. that she had contested the Election during the period of notice for VRS without informing the Railway Administration. £-
We do not find any infirmity in the order o3 the Disciplinary Authority dated 06.02.2013 2 a upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.07.2015, L?. Rule 18 of Railway Services {Cenduct) Rules, 1966 deals with submission of return of ASSets and liabilities by the Railway servant on his appointment to the Railway service in the prescribed form. As per Rule 18 Note 3 (2 a Rallway servant cannot acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgege, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise either in Qa my Ct tet ia y his own name or in the name of any family members except with the previous knowledge of the Government. The relevant portion of Rule 18 is extracted as below:-
48. Movable, fmmovable and Valuable Propersy:
(1) @ Every railway servant shall on his first appointment fo the railway service submit a return of his assets and liabilities, in such form as may be prescribed by the Government, giving full particulars regarding--
(aj the inmovable property inherited by him, owned or acquired by him or held by him on lease or mortgage, either 24 (24 No. 1722013 in his awn mame or in the name of any member of his fasnily or in the name of anv other persan;
fb) the shares, debentures and cash ine! nding bank deposits inherited by him or similarly owned, acquired or held by Rim;
(c} other movable property inherited by him or similarly owned acquired ar held by Bim: (@) dehis and other Habilities incurred by him directly or indirectly, NOt: Eocene Note:2 DP oeceanensects (2) No rail ay servant shall, except with the previous knowledge of the Government acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, \\ Provided ...
NOE occ ccecscctsen seoveceepenteess Note:2: OG... neuynedenens , L8. As oer Article IT of charge, in the nomination form filled by the applicant she (ft mentioned abcut immovable property of Rs.25 lakhe in her name regarding which she had not given any intimation Lo the Railway % Administration as per Conduct Rules 18 af Railway Services, 1966. She also failed to submit with the office hen annual property x x for the years 2005 ta 2009 and at is ret Ens Ae a only after vigilance investigation she filed the annual property returns. Lo. AS pe i8t1} of the Ratiway Services fconduct} Rules, 1966 it is mandatory to file Annual Property Returns owned by the Railway Od Nal? 2faoi?
BS 62s servant every year, giving details of the property. The applicant, centinuously for the period of five years, failed to submit her annual property returna. In the circumstan es, we find nO infirmity in the findings given by:
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority with regard te charge Article TT, 2, The applicant also facec enquiry under charge article III with the allegations that AS per the Medical Manual, the Gazetted officers are not permitted tO produce Fivate Medical Practitioners.
Ch i ry er fet rh he Pa Cy oe cr if) Go rh hg ant produced certificate pee zg 2 "i @ wR rt ny a fu "3 o i Q dated 22.10.2010 that she was under treatment with MS Civil Surgeon Sub Divisiona i Hospital Karjat, District Raigad w.e.f. that date.
Zi, Here we take note of the fact that the powers of the Tribunal for judicial review are limited. It is settled law that in judicial review the Court or the Tribunal has no power x to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and toa arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial Review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to 26 | . | OA No fF 2/2017 ensure that the de | treatment ariel not ha ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in view of the Court or Tribunal. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court :
in the case of State of T.N. And Another Vs. 8. Subramaniam, 1996 STPL 1373 SC that when the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the Tribunal is devoid of power evidence and to come to Te to re-appreciate th rqe. The =.
rh 3} SB its own conclusion on the proof of only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in udiciai review is to consider whether the conclusion is hased on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion s based on no avidence.
Le. In the present case, keeping in mind the principle of -law on judicial review as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we do not find any merit on recerd to interfere wi th the conclusion in the departmental enquiry drawn by the authorities. The applicant herself has admitted that before the expiry of period of notice seeking voluntary retirement Lrom = service, she contested the election for membership of the State Assembly from Khed
27 OA Na 73201?
Alandi Constituency on behalf of republican party of india which is violative of Rule 5 of Railway Services PConduct) Rules, i12866 and unbecoming of a Government servant. Similarly, other two charges under Article II and If also stand proved against the applicant and heed moa interferance,
23. In the facts and circumstances of the nase, in view of above discussinan, the Original Application being devoid of merits is dismissed. MA No.203/2017 for cendonation of 'losed,. No order as to cost.
ch t fs o28) eg ma ct Bs 3 ie ma Ck oe (Ravinder Kaur) (Dx. Bhagwan Sahai) © Member (7) Membar {A} ma.