Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
Hasan Raza vs Union Of India on 19 June, 2018 cites

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

In view of above discussions and as per the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and in other cases as discussed above, this Tribunal will be justified to judicially review the present disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the interest of justice. Normally we would have quashed the punishment order and remitted the case to the disciplinary authority (respondent no. 2) to reconsider the case in accordance with the provisions of the Railway 18 Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 taking into account the observations made in this order and to pass an appropriate order. But in this case, the applicant is already retired from service since long and as discussed in para 26, the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the battery box was loaded on 19.1.2004 is questionable. Further, as stated in the Rejoinder filed by the applicant, Shri Ram Sunder was given minor punishment of suspending three railway passes for same or similar charges, without any implication on his salary. In the circumstances, the chargesheet against the applicant as well as the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority imposing the impugned penalty on the applicant are perverse and contrary to the facts on record. Accordingly, the chargesheet dated 10/11.2.2004 (Annexure A-1), the order dated 22/23.7.2004 (Annexure A-3), the order dated 10/11.01.2005 (Annexure A-4), the order dated 23/24.06.2005(Annexure A-5), the order dated 17.2.2007 (Annexure A-7) and the order dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure A-8) are set aside and quashed. We would not like to remit the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration as it would further delay the matter. Therefore, the respondents are directed to extend all consequential post retirement benefits to the applicant and refund the amount recovered from the applicant in pursuance of the penalty order, since the chargesheet and the penalty orders are quashed. It is, however, clarified that the applicant will not be entitled to any arrear salary by virtue of this order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next