IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s) N0. ^"~? 33 OF 2008 PETITIONER Vs Union of India, through the Senior Divisional Personnel °^eA^?"^"^ ^'"^ •^<k" RESPONDENT ^ ^9 y-^' <vy,- ./ ^^ .^•' .^.:..a <^-" ^^^t <. 1. Jagdamba Singh, aged about 39 years, S/o TejbahQdur Singh, resident of Shankar Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Torva, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur. ,3. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 34 years, Son of Shri Chhedilal, resident of Babukholi, Bilaspur, P.S. Torva, Bilaspur (CG). 4. Mohanlal Kori, aged about 34 years, Son of Shri Alguram. resident of Mohan Building, P.S. Torva, Bilaspur (CG). ,-5. Naruttam, aged about 36 years, son of Anjordas, resident of Jairam Nagar, P.S. Torva, Bilaspur (C<5) PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CPNSTITUTION OF INblA ['^ X^M ^^^^ -^^... HIGH COURT OF CHH^TTISGARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUbbUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. A&AWNAL. JJ. PETITIONER RESPONbENT PETITIONER RESPONDENT PETITIONERS WRIT PETITION N0. 340/04 Union of India Vs K. Babu Rao WRIT PETITION N0.268/04 Union of India Vs b.K. butta WRIT PETITION N0.1760/06 Union of India & others Vs RESPONDENTS Mohd. Salim & others WRIT PETITION [S] N0.3929/08 PETITIONERS Jagdamba Singh <& 3 others Vs RESPONDENTS Union of India <& 2 others 4 WRIT PETITION (s) N0.5233/08 PETITIONERS Union of India & 2 others Vs RESPOND6NTS Jdgdamba Singh <& 3 others Present: \^ Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate •• For the petitioner in W.P. No.340/04 Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. ShaShibhusan, Advocate • For the petitioners in W.P. (s) No.3929/2008 and for respohdent Nos.l & 3 to 5 in W.P. [s] No.5233/08. Mr. P.S. Koshy, Advocate • For the petitioner in W.P. No.268/04 Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate • For the petitioner in W.P. [s] No.5233/08 and for the respondents in W.P. (S) No.3929/08 Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate • For the respondents in W.P. Nos.340/04, 268/04 <& 1760/06. ? ^sm ^, %^^' ^^^^^^ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29th July, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The above writ petitions are being disposed ofby this common order as issue is involved in all these writ petitions is identical. However, for the purpose of this order facts of Writ Petition No.340/2004 are referred. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was appointed as daily wage Casual Gangman in the establishment of respondent-Railway w.e.f. 31.3.1990. In the appointment order of the respondent it has been specifically mentioned that if any of the certificates submitted by the respondeht at the time of joining his services is found false, his service shall be terminated without any notice. The petitioner- department conducted verification of the certificates submitted by the respondent. On verification, the petitioner found that the respondent herein had obtained the employment by producing fake certificate and assuch, the resppndent was discharged from the services vide order dated 10.5.1990. The respondent challenged the order dated 10.5.1990 before the tribunal by filing an original application bearing No.356/97 on the ground that his service has been terminated without any enquiry. The tribunal disposed of the said original application vide order dated 26.6.1998 (Annexure P-4) with a direction to the petitioner department to hold enquiry and thereafter. if it is found that the respondent herein is guilty of misconduct, the respondent will not be entitled for reinstatement. 4. In compliance of the tribunal's order the petitioner appointed the Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry. The enquiry was held on 20.8.98 <& 08.09.98. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the effect that he could not verify the ^\ • C'K^ '-k '"% ^^-''.^ ""^^^^•'>' \^^ certificate as the respondent failed to produce the original certificate. The competent authority based on the report of the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 01.12.1998 decided not to reinstate the respondent. 5. Being aggrieved by the orderdated 01.12.1998 the respondent has again approached the tribunal by filing an Original Application No. 323/99 and the tribunal relying on the ratio laid down by the tribunal in O.A. No.27/99 quashed the order dated 01.12.1998 and directed the petitioner herein to take back the respondent in service. The petitioner herein was further directed to grant back wages to the respondent from the date of the tribunal's order dated 12.3.1997 passed in O.A. No.357/1991. This order of the tribunal is under chatlenge in this petition. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the earlier decision made in similar petition by the tribunat. one of which is O.A. No.1152/04 decided on 17.8.2005, and contended that in that original application the tribunal dismissed the application of the applicant therein whose case is similar to that of the respondent herein, but the original application which is subject matter of this writ petition has been allowed by the tribunal. In some of the original^ applications the question of limitation had also been raised but the tribunal has ignored the same and decided the original application in favour of the respondent. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. 8. Accordingly, we allow the writ petitions, set aside the orders passed by the tribunal directing reinstatement of the respondent-employees and payment of back wages and remit .^^- 1 ^y^ ^::^ ^^^- Koshan/- ^3 the matter to the tribunal for fresh decision. Needless to mention that these matters are old matters and require expeditious disposal, therefore, the tribunal is requested to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months. 9. Meantime, it is directed that status quo, as on today, in respect of the working of the respondent-employees shall be maintained till disposal of the original applications by the tribunal. The parties shall be at liberty to file documents in support of their respective cases before the tribunal. 10. In view of above, the interim order passed earlier by this Court stands discharged. No order as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be placed in the record of other connected writ petitions. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge