Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Rajinder Singh on 18 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 95(2002)DLT857
Author: Sharda Aggarwal
Bench: Sharda Aggarwal
JUDGMENT Sharda Aggarwal, J.
1. The petitioner has directed this petition against the order dated 5th December, 1998 of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, by which OA.No. 1831/97 was allowed directing reinstatement in service of the respondent with all consequential benefits. The respondent No. 1 was a casual labour on daily wages working under IOW/BLM. He claimed to have worked as such from 15th April, 1978 up to 15th February, 1981 rendering in all 383 days service. In 1987, a Notification was issued inviting applications for the post of substitute loco cleaner, the pre-condition of which was that the applicant should have been working prior to 4th October, 1978 as casual labour. Respondent No. 1 applied for the same and after the interview and getting the previous working of the applicant verified, he was appointed as substitute loco cleaner w.e.f. 29th November, 1988. While he was working as substitute loco cleaner, he was served with a major penalty charge sheet dated 15th July, 1991 alleging that with his connivance a forgery was committed in obtaining a certificate indicating his working period as a casual labour from 15th April, 1978 to 15th February, 1981. He was served with statement of charges and the statement of amputations on the basis of which charges were to be sustained. In short, the statement of amputations, on the basis of which charges were to be sustained was that he managed to secure employment as substitute loco cleaner by showing that he had worked under IOW/BLM during the period 15th April, 1978 to 15th February, 1981. On re-verification of their original working, the signatures of IOW/BLM were found forged. The allegations were that with the connivance of respondent No. 1 a forgery was committed showing the period of his working as casual labour prior to 4th October, 1978 which was a pre-requisite for the post of substitute loco cleaner. A further imputation against him was that by doing so he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted i n a manner unbecoming of a railway servant and thus contravened Rule 3.1 (i) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer returned the finding that charges were not proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority, however, dis-agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and vide its orders dated 7th October, 1994 imposed a punishment of removal from service on respondent No. 1. An appeal against the said order and a revision petition filed thereafter by respondent No. 1 were also rejected. Aggrieved by the said orders, respondent No. 1 filed O.A. before the Tribunal which resulted in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India has preferred the present petition.
2. Perusal of the impugned order and the material placed on record indicates that main ground taken by respondent No. 1 was that he was not allowed to examine some witnesses during the enquiry proceedings. His prayer for supplying some documents was also not allowed. The Tribunal did not find the said grounds relevant as the Enquiry Officer had concluded in favor of the charged officer and had found the charges not proved against him. The Tribunal has in fact returned the finding that the Disciplinary Authority did not give cogent reasons for its dis-agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and finding the order of the Disciplinary Authority without any foundation, the order of removal from service of respondent was quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. G.D. Bhandari has vehemently contended that the Disciplinary Authority had acted arbitrarily without applying its mind. It is alleged that it failed to five cogent and valid reasons for its dis-agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and had not complied with the mandatory rules in this respect. The Disciplinary Authority gave a note of dis-agreement in the following words :
"During the course of enquiry P.W. Shri Jutla denied his signatures on the C.L. card. When the card was already signed by previous IOW Shri Qureshi then what was the idea on verification of the working days of Shri Jutla, as mentioned in the enquiry proceeding that D.W. Shri Luxmi Narain Clerk under IOW/BLM has accepted that the signature of C.L. Card are of Shri S.P. Jutla. This version, is doubtful and not accepted because Shri Luxmi Narain stated that it seems to be the signature of Shri Jutla. He has not confirmed the facts and moreover you have not worked under Shri Jutla. On the lots of all the enquiry finding the authentic record on the basis of which the working days were verified was taken by Vigilance branch and from the same record already reverification the period of working was not verified.
Keeping in view the above facts I do not accept the findings and charges framed against you are proved.
4. The Disciplinary Authority's reasoning in its dis-agreement on the ground that casual labour card having been signed by the previous IOW, there was no requirement for its verification during the period when respondent worked under Mr. S.P. Jutla is without any basis having no relevance with the charges against the respondent or evidence produced against him in the enquiry. The main question before the Enquiry Officer was as to whether the verification by Shri S.P. Jutla was false or fabricated or his signatures were forged, but the Disciplinary Authority was of the view that there was no requirement of verification of Mr. S.P. Jutla's signatures on the card. The second ground for dis-agreement was that he did not believe the testimony of Laxmi Narain, the defense witness, who was a Clerk under IOW/BLM and who had accepted the signatures of Shri S.P.Jutla on the casual labour card. The note of dis-agreement thus shows that the reasoning given for dis-agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not cogent. It is pointed out that while differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority took the date of initial appointment of the respondent as 15th August, 1978 instead of 15th April, 1978 and held that 15th August being a national holiday, it was not possible to have engaged the respondent. Reference has been made to the appointment letter dated 29th November, 1988 appointing the respondent as substitute loco cleaner which clearly indicates the date of his initial engagement as 15th April, 1978. it is submitted that for all these reasons,t he dis-agreement of the Disciplinary Authority is arbitrary and without application of mind to the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer.
5. Mr. H.K. Gangwani, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the orders of the Tribunal directing the respondent No. 1 to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits for the period he was kept out of service is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record. It is submitted that the evidence was lead before the Enquiry Officer and the witnesses examined by the Department were cross-examined and as such it cannot be held that it was a case of no evidence. It is also contended that it was not in the domain of the Tribunal to appreciate evidence and reach its own conclusions. It is submitted that neither the Tribunal nor this Court would normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority except where it shocks the judicial conscience in which case it can mould the relief by directing the Authority to reconsider the punishment or to hold a fresh enquiry. Somehow, on facts learned counsel for the petitioner failed to justify the dis-agreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the respondent insists that once the enquiry is held vitiated and the delinquent ordered to be reinstated, he is entitled to all consequential benefits for the period he remains out of job. We do not tend to agree with the proposition. The findings of the Tribunal to the extent, it set aside the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority followed by the orders of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, find favor with us. However, we do not find any justification in granting the delinquent full back wages for the period he was kept out of service. The delinquent was removed from service on 7th October, 1994. Since then he has not been working with Railways. The enquiry proceedings are found vitiated basically on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority had not given cogent reasons for dis-agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, who had exonerated the delinquent. There was also an imputation against the delinquent that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of railway servant. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find it expedient to direct the payment of back wages. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is modified as under :
6. The impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority of respondent No. 1's removal from service followed by the orders of the Appellant and Revisional Authorities are quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to be reinstated in service within one month from the date of this order without back wages.
7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.