HI$H COURT OF CHHATTI5GARH AT BILASPUR v Writ Pe‘fi‘rion Na.49 @f 2030 CORAM: Hon’bk Shri SR. Nuynk, C3 & Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosahep Deshmukh, J‘ Uniw of India, Through ‘Fhe Divisionai Railway Manager, \v S.E.RaHway, Biiaspur. : 2. 5r. Divisional Personnel Officer/ SE. Raiiwcxy, Biiaspur, Chhqt‘i'isgm‘h. ' ”g. ’ {Je‘ri‘i’ioner VERSUS Sri S‘PMendcxl, 5/0 La'ie Prayag Mondal, House No‘302, Ward No.19, Gurunanak Nagm‘, Durg/Chhaf‘risgqrh. The Cemmi Adminis‘im‘iive Tribunal, Bench cx‘l’ Jabalpur (MP), Through ifs Registrar. Rwpondznfs Shri K.M.Ansari, Coun$el For The pefifioners. 5hri 5.N.Nande, Counsel for responden‘r No.1 ORAL ORDER (Passad on 3’” January 2006) The following oral order of The Cour? was passed by s.R.NMAK, Ear. The Union of India represem‘ed by The Divisional Railway Manager, Soufh Eastern Railway, Bilaspur and The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, SouTh Eastern Railway, Bilaspur, being aggrieved by “ihe order of ‘ihe Cenfral Adminisfra‘iive Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabaipur (for shor‘r ”rhe Tribunal') dafed 4.8.2000 passed in Review Applicafion No’ 48/1985, have preferred This wri‘i’ pei'i'rion under Arficles 226 and 227 of The Consfii'ufion of India. ‘\, *uola« \ _ap 2. The back ground fads leading 1’0 fhe filing of fhis wri‘r pe‘rifion be now‘ad QT ihez firs? insfance and ‘i’hey, in brief, are as follows. The respondenf No’ 1, while serving as Senior Booking Clerk a? Durg, was di$missed from Service by order dafed 12.2.1975 issued by fhe *rhen Senior Divisional Commercial Superin'lendenf, Soufh Easiern Railway, Bilaspur as o measure of penolfy on “the ground ‘lhm‘ some unpunched railway Tickers which were repor‘l'ed missing were found in his railway quar'rer a? Durg when railway quar‘ier was raided byvCenfral gureou of Invesfigofion. 3‘ Being aggrieved by fhe above action of ’rhe disciplinary ouihorify, ihe 15+ responden‘i insiim‘led suit No. 18—A/1978 in The Cour? of Civil Judge, Class—II, Bilaspur for declara‘rion Thai“ The punishmenT imposed on him by The disciplinary auThoriTy is a nulliTy in ihe eye of lawi Afier #he con‘s‘l'i‘l'ufion of fhe Tribunal, The said suii" was fransferred “f0 +he Tribunal and fhe same was numbered as Case No. TA. 129/1987. The Tribunal having found Thai The enquiry condum‘ed by The disciplinary au'ihori‘i'y suffered from grave subsian‘rial procedural flaws, se'i' aside fhe penalty order and direcTed reins-ra‘iemen'i’ of fhe 15" responden‘i' info fhe service wi‘i‘hin Three menfhs from The dafe of communicaTion' of fhe order, by ifs judgmenf and order dafed 19+!“ January 1999. The Tribunal while doing so, direc‘i’ed The compefen‘i auThori‘iy in fhe Deporfmen‘i to pass ‘i’he appropriafe order under Fundamenfal Rule 54-A for regulafing fhe infervening period, fha‘i’ is 1’0 say, befween fhe dafe of removal from service and 'the dafe of reinsfa‘femen’i’ of fhe 151 respondeni' info service, in pursuance of ihe order made by The Tribunal. The Tribunal, fur‘iher, reserved liber‘ry fo The Depari'men'f f0 conducf a fresh enquiry against 15+ respondenf info fhe charges framed againsf him in accordance wifh law. The Department however; did no? conducf any fresh enquiry as permi‘H‘ed by The Tribunal. -.%._ 5. As dwecfed by fhe Tmbuna! fhe Departmam wrl'hou‘t issuing mime TO the 1" respondon't and wwhom‘ gwmg hcm any oppormmw of bemg heard passed an order under Fundamenml Rule 54 A denying 50% of wages fa fhe Is rzspondem during i‘he infervenmg period. 85mg aggrieved by ‘Hie said order- made by ‘H'te Dapar‘rmenf under Fundamen‘ral Ruie 54 A fhe firsf respondenf filed O A Na 397/1992 before The Trihunal seeking ifs infervenhon The Tribunal havmg opined ‘rl'ia‘r before passmg The order under Fundamen‘ml Rule 54 A lhe Depqrfmen? ough‘l f0 have tssued malice fa The 15" respondenf and heard him sef aSide the order made by The Deparfmen‘r and dfrecled The Depnrfmen'l‘ Tc issue rial-ice, consider fhe represen‘ra‘ri‘m of fhe Isl responden‘r and Then pass appropriafe order, vide ifs order dnfed ”h January/l 1994 We are Tcld that in pursuance of We above direcfion of i’he Tribunal lhe Depurfmenf huvmg issued no‘l'ice To lhe 1. respondem passed an order on 73 1994 again denying 50% of wages To 1" respondent and ugcunsi‘ llie said order fhe 15 respondem‘ insfi'mi‘ed O A No I39/1995 before ihe Tribunal Tha’r applicm‘ion was opposed by one Department The Tribunal, by i'l‘s order dafed 20"“ July, 1995, disposed of 'l‘he said 0A. reserving liberty f0 'ihe 15* respondent 1‘0 seek review of the order duied 5” January, 1994 Accordingly fhe pefihoners filed Rewew Applicahon No 48/1995 for rewew of die order dared 511994 made in OA No 397/92 The Tribumi by its. order deied 4*“ August 2000 allowed 'ihe ReView Applicafion and direcfed The pefifioners herein 1‘0 regularize ‘rhe miervening period from fhe doie of removal of 15’ respondenf To the date. of his reinsi‘atemen'i' in terms of F R 54 A and directed ihaf 15* respondenf should be paid full pay and allowances 6. Being aggrieved by ihe above order, The Depar’rmeni‘ has preferred +his .Wrif Pe‘rifion under Ar‘ricles 226/227 of fhe Cons‘riful'ion of India. _.'~)‘ 7’ Learned smnding ccunsel appearing for ’fhe pdHionerg would phce befar'e us The ‘foHow'mg ‘fwo comen‘i’iom for our- considerm’ion: (i) fhaf since The Tribunal se? aside The penaHy order by H5 order dm‘ed 19+h January, 1990 on Techniccd grounds, 'fhe 15" respondem £s not enTifled 1'0 ful! sahry anci aibwcnces during fhe infer-varying period in ferms of fhe provisions cf Clause (i) of sub~rule (2) of FR. 54~A: and (ii) 'ihai’ ‘the Tribunal ough‘i' no? f0 have issued The’lgind of direc‘rion if has issued in ihe review order. In o'rher wards, according To ihe learned s‘ianding counsel, The impugned order made in ’rhe Review Applicafion No.48/1995 is one wi‘ihoui auihorify of law. Learned counsel for ‘ihe firsf respondent per confra, Would supper? ihe impugned order mode by ‘ihe Tribunal in il’ie Review Applicarion No.48/1995. 8. Having heard The learned counsel for fhe parfies, we do no? “find any merit in eiiher of The 1wo confen'rions urged by The learned sTcxnding counsel for The peTiTioners. l We have carefully perused The original records placed before us parTicularly The judgmenT of The Tribunal daTed 19“ January 1990 made in T.A.No‘129/1987. As could be Seen from ThaT order, The Tribunal has 5eT aside The penalTy order and direcTed reinsTaTemenT of The 15* respondenT inTo service noT on The basis of Technical ground§buT for subsTanTial flaws in The very procedure adopTed by The DeparTmenT in conducTing deporTmenTal enquiry againsT The 15+ respondent IET is poinTed ouT ThaT 15+ respondenT was denied of The assisTance of Shri A;K.AwasThi as his defence represenTaTive To parTicipaTe in The deparTmenTal enquiry. The Tribunal has also poinTed ouT ThaT even The relevanT documenTs soughT by The 1“ respondenf delinquenT were noT made available To him in The deparTmenTal enquiry. VirTually, The so-called enquiry . conducTed by The DeparTmenT was ToTally perfuncTory and farcical and in uTTer vioiaTion of principles of noTural JusTice and fair‘play in acTion. \ -3- @ -g— Tha‘? was exacfly fhe reason why fhe Tribunal reserved liber‘ry To The Deparfmam Ta conducf frash enquiry agains? The 15+ responden? delinquent if They so desire, but The Deparfmen‘r for fhe reasons has? known To H, did m’r conduct enquiry agains‘r ‘rhe 15’ respondent Having accep‘red The above judgmeni’ of The Tribunal as correcl and valid one, i? would no'l lie in The moufh of fhe Deporfmen‘r now lo ‘( confend fhm" The 15" responden‘r was exoneroied from The charge on Technical grounds, and Therefore, he is noT enTiTled To full salary and allowances during The inTervening period by virTue of The pTovisions of Clause (i) of sub—rule (2) Of FR. 54—A. STricTly speaking, ThaT provision has no applicaTion To The focTs of This case. We would say This, because, The enquiry conducTed by The DeparTmenT culminaTing in The removal of 15* respondenT from service is noT an enquiry aT all in The eye of law being The one done in flagranT violaTion of principles of naTural jusTice and fair play in acTion. 9. Looking from anoTher angle also, The denial of 50% of salary and allowances To The 1” respondenT during inTervening period would violaTe The ArTicle 14 posTulaTes. If The acTion of The deparTmenT is upheld, iT would TanTamounT To condemning 15+ respondent for no faulT of his and ThaT Too unheard. 10f In The resulT and for The foregoing reasons, wriT peTiTion is dismissed, however, wiTh no order as To cosTs, Deshm‘mh l $dl- Raosaheb Judge map ; i Sdl- v’k Chief Justice ll i r‘+1l)” l