Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Deo Yadav Deceased Represented ... vs General Managar, N Rly on 18 February, 2026
(Reserved on 21.01.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
This is the 18th Day of February, 2026
Original Application No.639/2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Ram Deo Yadav son of Bhikkhu Yadav (Deceased)
1/1. Chanwati Devi wife of late Ram Deo Yadav
1/2 Harish Chandra son of late Ram Deo Yadav
Both resident of Village Kanpur, Post Khajha Kurd, District Mau.
...........Applicants
By Adv.: Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha
Shri Kamlesh Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
2. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
3. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Carriage & Wagon) Northern Railway,
Lucknow.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 "i. to set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.20174 (Annexure No.1 to the O.A.) passed by the respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure No.2) passed by the respondent No.3.
ii. to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of salary as well as entire retiral benefits with all consequential benefits to the applicant."
3. During the pendency of the instant Original Application, the sole applicant died and was substituted by his legal heirs.
4. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application are that the husband of the applicant Ram Deo Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') was working as Khalasi (Helper) under the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Northern Railway. He was implicated in a criminal case arising out of an unfortunate incident of the year 1996 involving a village clash between two groups, in which two persons lost their lives. The said case was tried as Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1998 before the Sessions Court, Mau. During the pendency of the trial, the applicant was granted bail and continued to discharge his duties without interruption.
4.1 Subsequently, the Sessions Court convicted the Ram Deo Yadav under Sections 147, 323/149 and 302 IPC and vide judgments dated 18.07.2011 and 23.07.2011 awarded sentences of life imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved thereby, the Ram Deo Yadav preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4432 of 2011 before the High Court, Allahabad, which vide order dated 30.11.2011 granted bail and stayed the realization of fine.
4.2 The High Court, Allahabad, vide order dated 31.01.2012, further stayed the sentence awarded by the trial court during pendency of the criminal appeal, specifically taking note of the fact that the applicant (Ram Deo Yadav) was a Railway servant and that continuance of the sentence would adversely affect his service career.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 4.3 As alleged by the applicant, despite the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court, the respondent authorities placed the applicant under suspension on 16.12.2011 and thereafter, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 13.04.2012 solely on the basis of conviction, without considering the stay of sentence and without examining the conduct of the applicant.
4.4 The applicant preferred a statutory Appeal dated 08.05.2012. During pendency thereof, this Tribunal directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal. However, the Respondent- 2 rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated 11.04.2017. The applicant has since attained the age of superannuation, and being aggrieved by the impugned orders filed the instant OA before this Tribunal.
5. Counter Affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 27.03.2019 wherein they have denied the claim of the applicant and stated that the applicant, while working as Khalasi Helper under the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Northern Railway, Lucknow Division, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Mau in Criminal Case No. 117 of 1998 under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 302 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine. Though the applicant preferred an appeal before the High Court, Allahabad and was granted bail, the conviction continued to operate.
5.1 It is stated that after grant of bail, the applicant applied for resumption of duty, which was duly considered by the competent authority. However, in view of the conviction by a criminal court, the applicant was placed under suspension under Rule 5 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and a show cause notice under Rule 14 was issued. After considering the reply/representation submitted by the applicant on 06.02.2012, the disciplinary authority SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 passed a reasoned order dated 13.04.2012 dismissing the applicant from service.
5.2 The respondents further submitted that the statutory appeal preferred by the applicant on 08.05.2012 was duly examined by the Appellate Authority, which passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 11.04.2017 rejecting the appeal and confirming the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
5.3 The respondents have relied upon Railway Board's letter dated 06.06.1994 and subsequent letter dated 08.07.2013 (RBE No. 65/2013) to contend that mere filing of an appeal or suspension of sentence by the Appellate Court does not dilute the effect of conviction and that the Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose penalty on the basis of conviction notwithstanding the stay of sentence.
6. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed from the side of the applicant on 20.12.20196, wherein he has denied the respondents' averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterate the facts of the Original Application.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case are the impugned orders of dismissal dated 13.04.2012 and rejection of appeal dated 11.04.2017 are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as the respondent authorities have mechanically imposed the extreme penalty solely on the basis of conviction, without examining the conduct of the applicant which led to such conviction, a mandatory requirement under service jurisprudence.
7.1 The disciplinary authority invoked the exceptional power under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 without due application of mind and in complete disregard of the settled law that even SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 in cases of conviction, the authority must act fairly, justly and reasonably and must record reasons justifying the penalty imposed.
7.2 The High Court, Allahabad, had stayed the sentence awarded by the trial court vide order dated 31.01.2012, specifically observing that the applicant was a Railway servant and that non-suspension of sentence would seriously prejudice his service. The respondent authorities failed to consider the effect and implication of the said judicial order while passing the impugned orders.
7.3 The Appellate Authority has rejected the applicant's appeal without dealing with the specific grounds raised therein, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the appellate order non-speaking and perverse.
7.4 Learned counsel for the applicant place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shankar Dass v. Union of India (1985) and sated that punishment upon conviction cannot be imposed mechanically and the authority must consider the nature of offence and the conduct of the employee. Since such consideration is wholly absent in the present case, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed with all consequential benefits.
8. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents in support of his case submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has acted strictly in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the constitutional scheme under Article 311(2) proviso (a) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that once a railway servant is convicted by a criminal court for a serious offence involving moral turpitude, the Competent Authority is empowered to impose a major penalty without holding a regular departmental inquiry.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 8.1. It is further stated that suspension of sentence or grant of bail by the Competent Court does not obliterate or suspend the conviction itself and unless the conviction is set aside, the employer is legally entitled to take disciplinary action on the basis of such conviction. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on the binding instructions issued by the Railway Board and the settled position of law governing disciplinary action on conviction.
8.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Appellate Authority has duly examined the matter and passed a reasoned and speaking order and therefore no procedural illegality or violation of principles of natural justice is made out. It is contended that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and this Tribunal may not substitute its own view in place of the administrative decision taken by the competent authority.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the pleadings, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, documents on record as well as the impugned orders.
10. The applicant has assailed the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and the appellate order dated 11.04.2017 confirming the said penalty.
11. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the applicant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Mau in Sessions Trial No.117 of 1998 for offences under Sections 147, 323/149 and 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment along with fine. The conviction recorded by the criminal court has not been set aside till date.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7
12. Though the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4432 of 2011 before the High Court, Allahabad and was granted bail. It is well settled that grant of bail or stay of sentence does not wipe out or suspend the conviction itself, unless the conviction is expressly stayed or set aside by the appellate court.
13. The Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, vide order dated 30.11.2011, enlarged the applicant on bail and stayed the realization of fine. Thereafter, on an application seeking suspension of sentence, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 31.01.2012, directed that the sentence awarded by the trial court shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal. The said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad is reproduced below:
"Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. This application has been filed by the appellant Ram Deo Yadav with a prayer that the sentence awarded to him by the trial court vide order dated 23.7.2011 in S.T. No. 117 of 1998 may be suspended. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant Ram Deo Yadav is an employee of Railway department, in the present case 12 persons have been convicted, the alleged occurrence has taken place in the night, in case the execution of the sentence is not suspended, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss.
In reply to the above submission it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the appellant has been released on bail by this court on 30.11.2011, the realisation of fine has also been stayed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant has been released on bail by this court on 30.11.2011, the realisation of file has already been stayed. The appellant is a railways employee. In this case 12 persons have been convicted by the trial court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the sentence awarded by the trial court shall remain suspended till the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly this application is disposed of."
A careful reading of the aforesaid order shows that the High Court has only suspended the execution of the sentence during pendency of the appeal, without granting any stay of the conviction or setting it aside. The conviction recorded by the trial court, therefore, continues to subsist and consequently, the statutory as well as constitutional power of the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 employer to take action on the basis of such conviction remains unaffected.
14. Article 311(2) proviso (a) of the Constitution of India authorizes the Competent Authority to impose penalty on a government servant who has been convicted on a criminal charge, without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 recognize and incorporate this constitutional position.
15. As stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit, after taking note of the conviction, the applicant was placed under suspension and a show cause notice under Rule 14(1) was issued, to which the applicant submitted his reply dated 06.02.2012.
16. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority shows that the authority has taken note of the fact that the applicant stood convicted in Criminal Case No. 253/96 under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 302 IPC and, after considering the reply submitted by the applicant to the notice issued under Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, came to the conclusion that the same was not satisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority, invoking Rule 6 (VII) to (IX) of the said Rules, thereafter decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect, as reproduced hereinabove. Having regard to the nature of the conviction and the reasons recorded in the impugned order, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be arbitrary or without authority of law. For ready reference, the impugned order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is reproduced herein below in extenso:-
"उ0 रे 0 सामा य-230" फाम सं09 रे ल कमचार (अनश ु ासन तथा अपील) नयम, 1968 के नयम 6 (VII) से (IX) के अनुसार शि त का आदे श सं या E/4/1/के.बै./वाराणसी/2011 थानः मंडल कायालय लखनउ SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 दनाँकः 13.04.2012 त ी राम दे व यादव पु भी खू यादव, टे नो0-।।
अधीन सी0डी0ओ0/(माफत सी0डी0ओ0/वाराणसी)
पैर 14(1) नो टस ापन सं या समसं यक दनाँक 30.12.11 के उ र म आपके
दनाँक 06.02.12 के अ यावेदन पर मैने यानपव
ू क वचार कया है । मझ
ु े आपका
अ योवेदन न न ल खत कारण से संतोषजनक नह ं मालम
ू होता-
कृपया संल नक 'अ' दे खे।
अतः मै आपके व ध लगाये गये आरोप (पो) अ.स.253/96 धारा 147, 323, 149, 302, 149 के लये आप को दोषी ठहराता हूँ। सेवा से अ नवाय नवत ृ / नकालने/पद यत ु करने क आपको शाि त दे ने के मैने नणय कया ह। अतः आपको ( त थ) त काल भाव से सेवा से पद युत कया जाता है-
2. रे ल कमचार (अनश ु ासन तथा अपील) नयम, 1968 के नयम 18 के अनुसार इनके आदे श व ध वीर.म.ु यां.अ भ/उ0रे 0 लखनऊ अपील क जा सकेगी य द-
(i) आदे श मलने से 45 दन के भीतर व धवत ् अपील क जाये, और
(ii) अपील क भाषा अनु चत या अभ न हो।
3. कृपया इस प क पावती दे ।
.................."
17. The respondents have relied upon Railway Board's letters dated 06.06.1994 and 08.07.2013 (RBE No.65/2013), which clarify that mere filing of appeal or suspension of sentence does not dilute the effect of conviction, and that disciplinary proceedings including imposition of penalty can proceed notwithstanding stay of sentence by the appellate court. Thus, the action of the disciplinary authority is thus in consonance with the statutory rules as well as executive instructions governing the field. Thus, the action of the disciplinary authority is in consonance with the statutory rules as well as executive instructions governing the field.
18. The statutory Appeal preferred by the applicant was considered by the Appellate Authority, which, taking note of the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, the suspension of sentence by the High Court and the applicable Railway instructions, rejected the appeal and affirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 dated 11.04.2017. For ready reference, the appellate order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-
"उ र रे लवे प ांक ई/4/1/कैवै/वाराणसी/2011 महल कायालय लखनऊ दनांक 07/11.04 2017 सेवा म, ी राम दे व यादव पु भ खु यादव, भू०पू० टे नी ।।।
अधीन को चग डपो अ धकार , उ र रे लवे/ वाराणसी ।
वषयः- दं ड नो टस रा या समसं यक दनाँक 13.04.2012 1
नम दं डः रे ल सेवा से पद युत कया जाना ।
वारा: मं०याँ०अ भ० (कै0वै) के व ध आपक अपील ।
संदभ: आपक अपील दनांक 08.05.2012
रे लवे सेवा अनुशासन और अपील नयम 1968 के नयम 22 के (2) के अनुसार अपील य ा धकार व र0मं0या0अ भ0/कै0वै0/उ0रे 0, लखनऊ के वारा क गयी अपील पर वचार करके न न ल खत न कष य त कया है :-
(क) इन नयम म अ धक थत या का अनुमलन कया गया है और य द
नह ं तो ऐसे अनुपालन के प रणाम वतं भारत के सं वधान के उपलि ध
का अ त मांक या याय वफलता हुई है और।
(ख) अनुशास नक धकार क न कश अ भलेख के सा रता सम पत है और ।
(ग) अ धरो पत भा रत भया त अपया त या कठोर है।
अपीलकता वारा अपील म यि तगत सुनवाई क माँग क गयी/नह ं क
गयी।
माननीय के य शास नक अ धकरण यायपीठ इलाहाबाद के वारा दनांक
17.02.17 को जार आदे श के आलोक म अपीलाथ ी रामदे व यादव, फटर क अपील
दे खी गयी एवं केस फाइल का गहन अ ययन कया गया। अपीलाथ को माननीय सेशन कोट मऊ वारा क मनल केस म अ भयु त पाया गया एवं अजीवन कारावास क सजा सुनायी गयी। इसके उपरानात माननीय हाईकोट वारा अपीलाधी क सजा को suspend कर दया जब तक क केस यायलय म वचाराधीन है । अपीलाथ को रे लवे वारा 13.04.2012 को डस मसल क शाि त दान क । अपीलाथ ने माननीय हाईकोट के फैसले का हवाला दे ते हुये शाि त कम करने क अपील तुत क है ।
अपीलाथ ने अपील म खुद को गलत ढं ग से फसाया हुआ बताया है। पर तु इस संबध ं म माननीय सेशन कोट का फैसला रे लवे के लये सव प र है एवं अपीलाथ क अपील पर उसको गलत नह ं गाना जा सकता। इसके अलावा अपीलाथ ने माननीय हाईकोट के फैसले के आधार पर शाि त कम करने के लये अपील क है। पर तु इरा सबंध म रे लवे के पी०एस० 10889 के अनुसार "When a person is convicted by a criminal court, the same shall remain in force until and unless it is reversed or set aside by a competent court in appeal", चूं क अपीलाथ के SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 खलाफ द गयी सजा केवल suspend क गयी है व Reversed or set aside नह ं क गयी है, अतः अपीलाथ क रे लवे कायवायी के खलाफ कोई अपील मा य नह ं है। अत अपीलाथ वारा क गयी अपील नर त क जाती है एवं उनको दान क गयी शि त यथोगत रखी जाती है।
इस प क पावती भेज।े ................"
19. The reliance placed by the applicant on Shankar Dass v. Union of India (supra) does not advance his case in the facts of the present matter. The said judgment does not prohibit dismissal upon conviction; rather, it emphasizes fairness in exercise of power. In the present case, having regard to the nature of offence and conviction for murder, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be excessive or unfair.
20. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Unless the decision- making process is vitiated by illegality, perversity or violation of natural justice, interference is not warranted. No such infirmity is found in the present case.
21. It is an admitted position that the applicant stands convicted for a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Merely being enlarged on bail or suspension of sentence during pendency of the criminal appeal does not efface the conviction. The pendency of the criminal appeal, therefore, does not confer any right upon the applicant to claim pensionary or other retiral benefits. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Secretary, Local Self Government Department & Others v. K. Chandran & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 7437-7438 of 2021, decided on 15.03.2022, wherein it has been categorically held that after conviction, an employee is not entitled to claim pension or any other retiral dues merely because the criminal appeal against conviction is pending before the High Court.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12
22. Further, the Apex Court in Ram Ratan Tiwari v. State of M.P. & Others (2002 (5) MPHT 11) has held that a Criminal appeal is not continuation of trial, therefore, in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Pension Rules, 1976, an employee convicted for a serious offence is not entitled for claiming pensionary benefits.
23. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, the claim of the applicant for grant of pensionary and other retiral benefits cannot be accepted so long as the conviction recorded by the criminal court continues to subsist. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Order dated 11.04.2017 do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory or constitutional provision. The Original Application lacks merits and is dismissed accordingly.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA