Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ramananda Hari vs Eastern Railway on 16 December, 2019
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH
Title Of The Case: O. A.No. I 6 Of 2013:
Sri Ramananda Hari, Son of Late Janki Hari
At present residing at Mina Bazar, Besides Gandhi
Maidan, P.O.: Madhupur, District: Deoghar,
Jharkhand, PIN:&I 5 353 and also working for gains
at Divisional Cash and Pay Office (CP/CKH), Eastern
!
Railways, Asansol Division, Asansol, District: Burdwan
West Bengal, PIN: 713 301.
... APPLICANT:
Versus. -
1. UNION OF INDIA, service through the General
Manager, Eastern Railways, having its office at
17, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata- 700 001.
. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, Eastern
Railways, having his office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road,
Kolkata- 700 001.
3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, Asansol
Division, Eastern Railways, having his office at,
Asansol, District: Burdwan, PIN- 713 301.
4. CHIEF CASHIER, Eastern Railways, having
His office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001.
5. FA&CAO ( W & T ), Eastern Railways, having his
Office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata- 700 001.
6. SENIOR DFM, Eastern Railways, having his
Office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001.
f
i
• %.
7. THE RAILWAY BOARD, constituted under the
Indian railway Board Act, 1905, through the Secretary,
of the Board, having its office at Room No. 2.54-a*
RouL RoAAfcviA. RqosJLj NLtW E&lWt*'U ooot •
... RESPONDENTS:
i
/
//
■L
-.r***
•.r. "•
:.:rjr7
1
V. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
. /
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
i No.OA.1606 /2013
Date of order: 12 J <
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
RAMANAND HARI
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Eastern Railway)
For the applicant : Mr. D. Biswas, counsel
For the respondents : Mr. S.K. Das, counsel
ORDER
Bidisha Baneriee, Judicial Member Aggrieved with cancellation of a selection to the post of Junior Shroff and his consequent reversion to the erstwhile post of Cash Khalasi, the applicant in this O.A. has sought for the following reliefs:-
"a) Direct the respondents and each of them to withdraw and/or cancel the impugned Office Order No.FA/WT/01/2013 dated 09.10.2013 being annexure "A-T* to the petition;
b) Direct the respondents not to disturb or interfere with the promotion of your Petitioner to the post of Junior Shroff having effected in terms of Office Order No.35/2012 and No.36/2012 both dated 19.10.2012 or any other Order/Orders having relation for giving effect to promotion to the petitioner;
cj Any order and/or further order/orders and/or directions as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to do justice to the petitioner."
22. The impugned order dated 09.10.2013 reads as under:-
\ % ■■ T / .' • Ofibcy Order £ ; Kj'^knta. datcd^09.Yo.2013 ^ O.O.No. FAiWT/0f)20l3 % j/^oilowing is ordered to take immediate effect ::
;
•r!4.j^P^^l^w'lRailway Board's advice as communicatdd'throtigt^SDGhH/Eastem '
3 IUil^^^kflta^tfe,^je«selectiMLorasess and' the panet.pubiishe<{ vide:C&P(DeptUs-earIier . v & -H. Shroff in Pay Bflnd^.S^20^^fe 1 f3^t 2. Consequent.upon above, the following staff of Cash & Pay .Depft., .'whoSWcre' r: • earlier.empanelled/rebommerided'fo'r in-scrvice training for the post of Jr. Shroff, .vide GfO. ,No. M 35/20i-2v''datoaT1l9:idSbl2 Jbid widj'promoted/promoted to officiate videTGlO-No.JiS/Tbl 2- ■ ''. S dfd.I9.i0.20T3^&^6'.37/26T2 dtd. .! 9. i0:201i respectively; Vre reverted1 to-'their. pareffr'. V i |f desigMtip^j6S7Bi^^em.Wlo^.such promotion & posting.. ' r.. ' ' ' tfM'. II. ' -:-r'r^r~~. --:------ ----- i------- ~~ - . '•'.•i'' 8¥ s 5 T>--
1 1.
;V:y-.
* V* ^!sfg;r O/0:N<4^pm- • ti■1 2 ;Sn'iM5s^que^fiajninedv>: sGP/;CKH/HW,H-. V V ^ ■Jrl-Shroffg^H^IS Dhirfendtff^mgh-' : CP/CKH/wWH ^ ^Smt^Lifrda!R5dhakrishoaal :cp/c.kh^r- i:Jr.-Shrgf^Py-^-:V^^IA ffi P ■ ■■■ gf-4- KrisKna;0rabtf.f>STJ ' '' CP/CKH/kfWH Jr.Sftr6ff7HWH^j^ seiifos: -.r-
ipS ~Ramanmtgm^SCT CP/CKH /ASS' Jr. Shroff/ASN -^l ?GP/QtH7ASI^^ B 6____ Smt^Gayatn^Dey ^______ CP/CKH 7SPAH Jr. Shroff/SDAH ^ - CP/Cm/SDAHtn . S_7____ ArbirftUKr;SiiiahJ(iST) :,GP/GKH/^1WH Jr. Shroffmy/H^V CP/CKHftTWHvA $ -Guiaj jPas'f- SC): . CP/CKH/HWH Jr. ShrdfSWHa;, .CPyCKH/HWH.
,^adaSEhaM6ndaifSC)- CP/CKH/^DAiT Jr. Shrcff/SDAH ■■■ •■ CP/GKH/SDAH^:
L» .
Thi?^l& tHc approval of the.com^eicr.rauthoriiy.
y -
' '**10$
. . -.(A!K. Shukli.) .
.
Kolkata.: Dated :Q9.10.2013
r„ :_r____ ^
3. Ld. counsels were heard and the materials on record were perused.
4. At hearing Id. counsel for the applicant would vociferously contend that the panel dated 19.10.2012(Annexure A/3) that was prepared pursuant to the selection being already exhausted and promotions being ordered vide order dated 19.10.2012(Annexure A/4) and the applicant along with others having joined the promotional post, selection could not be cancelled and the reversion without any due notice or proceedings could not have been issued by the authorities ./ /■ 3 and that the action of the respondents was in violation of procedure as W. contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
5. In course of hearing we had called for an affidavit from the respondents to disclose the reasons for cancellation of the selection.
From the records we discern the following "1. That to fill up nine(09) Nos. vacancies in the Category of Jr. Shroff through General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE), Selection was held in 2012. The total no of vacancies was 27 and as per rule 50% of such vacancies was to be filled up through direct recruitment (DR), 33tl/3% of the same was to be filled by general departmental competitive examination(GDCE) and the rest 16/2/3% through Limited Departmental competitive Examination (LDCE). Consequently, the break up of the vacancy position stood as follows:-
DR:- 13(50%)
GDCE:- 09(33/1/3%)
LDCE:- 05(16/2/3%)
Further, the break up of the vacant posts proposed to be filled was as follows:-
UR:- 06
SC:- 02
ST:- 01
2. Total 60 candidates opted to appear for the selection to the post of Jr. Shroff through GDCE and only 38 of such 60 candidates appeared in the written examination held on 23-09-2012.
3. As per the recommendation of the selection committee, a panel of the nine(09) candidates was formed, vide office order No.35/2012 dated 19/10/2012. Of the nine(09) successful candidates, seven(07) were ordered for promotion and posted to the post of Jr. Shroff vide office order no 36/2012 dated 19/10/2012(copy enclosed) and the two (02) candidates of the reserved community were ordered for "In-Service training for six(06) months, vide office order no.37/2012 dated 19/10/2012.
4. Meanwhile, two complaints, one addressed to Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer, E. Rly. and another addressed to Financial Commissioner, Railway Board, were received and the 4 some were forwarded to vigilance department of E Rlv for proper investigation.
5. Based on the investigation report of the vigilance Department, Railway Board observed that "there were serious lapses on the part of the officers" involved in the selection process and the selection" fails abysmally short of being fair or transparent." In view of the facts, as brought out in the investigation report by the vigilance department, that the sanctity and purity of the selection process has been "gravely compromised". Railway Board directed to quash the selection process and to re-conduct the same de-novo.
6. The decisiori of the Railway Board was communicated to the Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer, E. Rly., vide Sr. Dy. General Manager and Ex-officio Chief Vigilance Officer, E. Rly's letter no -G. 157/2013/0110074/CN2/G/HQ dated 23/09/2013 . copy of which is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure "AF- 1".
7. Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 219(1) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual(Voi.-f), the above mentioned panel was 7 cancelled, vide office order no-FA/WT/01/2013 dated 09/10/2013). Notification of de-novo examination was issued vide notification no GE/Selection/Jr. ShroJVC&P/2012-13(new) dated 12/12/2013 where all the opties of the previous selection/written examination held on 23/09/2012 including the petitioner have been given the opportunity to appear and compete in the written examination conducted de-novo on 09/02/2014.
8. In this connection, it is further submitted that the CVC in consultation with the Railway Board have advised to initiate disciplinary actions against all the officers involved in the selection process including the selection committee members and the same are under process. Copies of Sr. Dy. General Manager and ex-officio CVO of E. Railway's letter nos:
G157/2013/01/074/C/V2/G/HQ dated 17/10/2014 and no- G/157/2013/01/074/C/V2/G/HQ dated 21/10/2014 are enclosed herewith and marked collectively as Annexure "AF-2"
6. We had further asked for the decision to cancel the selection.
Despite opportunities, it was not produced until the final date of i hearing.
* i 5 The respondents have, produced a communication dated 23.09.2013 from the Senior Deputy General Manager which disclosed the following facts Confidential OFFICE OF THE ' -
GENERA!. MANAGER (VIGILANCE) ■ EASTERN RAILWAY 17'Netaji Subhas Road : Koikata - 700 001 No. Gi 57/7013/0 l/0074/C;VC/G/H(v) . Daled:23/09/20.10F FA & CAO.
Eastern Railway, KolUata.
Sub : Selection tor the post of Jr. Sluoff trom Gr.D in Cash office.
Ref: Your letter No. FA&CAOAuCSecrct dtd.S. 1.2013.
In the subject case two complaints were forwarded from your end vide letter under reference.. Similar complaint addressed to FC/Raihvay Board- was received by this office from Railway Board Vigilance for necessary action at this ehdFtvhe complaint got investigated by. this department, your comments(:.as'. cdmmenLS of concerned PKOD) was also obtained and a' report-.was"Sent th'/ Board Vigilance for obtaining hiriher advice from Board's office. On- .going- through the report ami allied doaimews. Board Vigilance have communicated certain observations. One of the observations require action from your end, the' observation being as under.
" The investigation report of Eastern Railway in'the above case has been examined-.-in Board's office wherein Beard (EC) has observed that the selection, for. the post of Jr.Shroff, from Gr.D on Eastern Railway.(Written exam held on23/09/20t2frblls abysmuily sh.in of being rair or umsparent. There are ^serious lapses on the paa of the officers involved in the process . It did not constitute a.credible tesi of candidates' abilities.and skills, and.level playing-held ^^to alibithdidates.vvas.sinipiy not available. 'lh/:Vi:e\V';df the .serious .irreanFinhcs in invigilation and evaluation of answer •sheefsoas flagged during vigilance investigation, the sanctity and.purity of tire; . selection;, have been gravely compromised. In view of this Bpard(FC) has obsenedfthaMie selection process be quashed and re-conducted (te novo. "
In this connection Board have .»iso advised to take immediate necessar/ action under intimation to Board.
In view of the Board's advice as stated above, action may please be taken from your end with intimation to this office for further communication to Board.
6Further, a communication dated 17.10.2014 has been placed wherefrom it appears that the Board Vigilance communicated certain observations one of which was to quash the selection process to conduct selection de novo as specific irregularities were detected in the selection. The communication being as under:-
"The selection for the post of Jr. Shroff from Gr.D on Eastern Railway falls abysmally short vf being fair or transparent. There are serious lapses on the part of the officers involved in the process. It did not constitute a credible test of candidates' abilities and skills, and level playing field of all candidates was simply not available.
In view of the serious irregularities invigilation and evaluation of answer sheets flagged during vigilance investigation, the sanctity and purity of selection has been gravely compromised. In view of this Board(Financial Commissioner) has observed that the selection process be quashed and re- conducted de novo."
7. Ld. counsel for the respondents at hearing would submit that this Tribunal had permitted the applicant to appear in the fresh selection vide its order dated 03.02.2014. The applicant had appeared in the fresh selection but submitted blank answer papers, therefore, he could not be selected against the post of Junior Shroff. Ld. counsel would further submit that since the selection that was cancelled as was tainted with malafide and corrupt practices of the officers, it was rightly quashed and a fresh selection was held. Ld. counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner having appeared at the i subsequent process was estopped by his conduct to seek consideration in terms of earlier selection that was cancelled on genuine grounds.
» ■ i 7
8. Ld. counsel for the applicant at hearing would place the following decisions to contend that reversion without proceedings was bad in IS 'as/ law. They are enumerated infra.
(i) Union of India vs. Jagdish Prasad reported in AIR 1982 SC 773(3 Judges Bench) where having noted that the promotion was granted not on officiating basis but on permanent basis, reversion of the respondent was held as violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
(ii) Shiv Prasad Sharrha vs. Union of India & Others, a decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta wherein reversion order was quashed being not preceeded by any proceedings.
(iii) A reported decision (Full Bench) of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Syed Abbas Hussain Nagri vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was held that promotion being a regular one, reversion amounted to reduction in rank, and as the procedure prescribed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution was complied with , the reversion was illegal.
In none of the decisions supra, reversion was as a consequence of cancellation of the selection process for promotion, hence their ratio would not apply to the case at hand where reversion from a promotional post was a consequence of cancellation of the selection process itself, on the contrary, on the basis of which such promotion was accorded. The respondents ought to enjoy a right to rectify if promotion was allowed on the basis of a faulty or irregular selection process, where rectification without any hearing would be permissible.[(1994)5SCC 180, (2006)8 SCC 192].
9. At hearing it also transpired that by an order dated 16.08.2016 the applicant was redeployed to a new unit of Accounts Department and posted as such as staff of Cash and Pay.
♦ 8
10. Having noted reasons for cancellation and the conduct of the Bjjf 5' applicant who submitted blank answer scripts, we are of the considered V 1 opinion that he does not deserve clemency.
11. Hence we dismiss the O.A. No costs.
--- /
V
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sb
/i