4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.t6^5 /2006 Petitioner Respondents ^Q^ ^b^ Basantu Ram aged 63 years son of S. Ram resident of village Tenganmada, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS l^--^l. Union of India through The Chairman of Railway Board, New Delhi 2. General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur 3. Divisional Railway Maganer, S.E.C. Railway Bilaspur •- 4. Senior Divisional Operating Manager, S.E.C.R. Bilaspur v WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CON- STUUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI. OUO WARRANTO, PROHIBI- TION AND/OR. ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION ON THE_SAME NATUREIN.TJ1ECIRCUMSTANCES OFTHE CASE. <lftL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1645 of 2006 Petitioner Basantu Rain Vcrsus Respondents Union oflndia &ofhers Siagle Bench : HonTite Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agailiotri. Shri Kamal Paadey, Advocate for fbe petitioner. None for the respondents, •s ORALORDBR (31stMarch, 2006) The foUowmg order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Superintendent-II in South Eastem Ra3way at Tenganjnada, Tahsfl- Kota, District- BUaspur was removed froni seivice after proper enquir}' on 16.9.1999. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an application being Original Application No. 669/2000 before fhe Central Admmistrative Tribiinal, Bench at Jabalpur. The Tribunal vide its oider dated 24,9.2003 (Annexure P/3) held as under:- In that backdrop we are of the considered opmion that tlie penalty awaried is totaJUy dispropoi-tionate to the dereUction of duty for which the applicant is held respousible. It is tliese factors that sj-e being hea'nly strihiag ia our mind and therefoic we only atlow fhe application iii part directuig that the discipUnary aufhority niay pass any other penally ofher than disinissal or i^nioval. This exercise shoiild be done wifhiii three nionths froin today, as the applicant has attaiaed fhe age ofsiiperannuation." 2. In compliance with fhe orier dated 24.9.2003 passed by fhe Ceutral Adinnusttstive Tribunal in O.A.No.669/2000, fhe respondeufe converted the puaishnient ofrcmoval to that. of coinpiilsory retireinent ^§ w.e.f. fhe same date i.e. 16.9.1999. The petitkiner has ffled this petition. statmg that the petitioner has worked even after fhe order of reinoval was passed against him. As such, the respondents be directed to uiake payment of salaiy aad wages fmm. 17.9.1999 to 11.5.2004, contention of the petitioner is based on the facts that the petitioner contmued to retam certaui documents ttU. 11.5.2004 and as such it shouM be presumed that the petitioner has worked after reiuoval {rom. 17.9.1999 to 11.5.2004, aad the payment for the said period be niade to fhe petitioner. 3, This petition is misconceived, By retaming certaia books/documents it caauot be presumed that the petitioner has worked after reinoval tiU 11.5.2004. The petitioner staads renioved which has later on converted to the piuiislunent of coiapulsory retirement w.e.f 16.9.1999. The contention of fhe petitioner deserves to be suminarily rejected, as it does not m.ake out a case for grant of any reMef on inisconception of fh.e facts and law. 4. Accordiagly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Thalv- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge