Allahabad High Court
Union Of India Thru. General Manager ... vs Ram Lakhan Singh on 13 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36559-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3623 of 2024
Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway , Gorakhpur And Others
Respondent :- Ram Lakhan Singh
Counsel for Petitioner :- Paavan Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Savita Jain
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(1) Heard Shri Paavan Awasthi for the petitioners and Ms. Savita Jain for the respondent.
(2) By means of this petition, Union of India challenges the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow on 06th November, 2023 in Original Application No. 350 of 2008. Apart from it, the other order dated 05th February, 2024 passed by the Tribunal is also under challenged, by which Review Application No. 332/00009/2023 filed for reviewing of the earlier judgment has been rejected.
(3) Apart from the assertions of the petitioners' Counsel that the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that a proper inquiry was conducted and as per the inquiry report, no document whatever was adduced by the respondent to give genuine and acceptable explanation for his absence for almost four years resulting in his removal from service, it is also stated in addition to this that in fact subsequent to the removal of the respondent as a result of bifurcation of Zone, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Samastipur, came in the Zone East-Central Zone, therefore, all records pertaining to the said proceedings and other ancillary documents were in the possession of the officials of East-Central Zone. Petitioners herein could only annexe some of the documents before the Tribunal, resulting in the impugned judgment which as per his submission, even otherwise, is a cryptic one and does not reveal any consideration of the pleas raised before the Tribunal. According to him, if the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of four years and could not explain the absence nor did he submit any application for leave etc., then the removal was justified. The appellate order passed subsequently after the initial OA was allowed, the earlier appellate order being cryptic one, was a reasoned order and did not require any interference.
(4) Ms. Savita Jain, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent worked under the petitioners for almost 22 years i.e. 1974 till 1996 and under compelling circumstances, he could not attend the services as pointed out by the respondent in his reply to the charge-sheet. Moreover, she says that the respondent was a low paid employee, therefore, this aspect should be looked into.
(5) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that non-impleadment of relevant officials of the East Central Zone renders impugned orders liable to be set-aside, as the authorities, who would have contested the matter based on the record in their possession, were not arrayed before the Tribunal. Apart from it, we find that the Tribunal should have considered other relevant aspects of the matter also. Of course, in doing so, it shall take into consideration the long services rendered by the respondent i.e. of 22 years as also the period of his absence and the explanation offered by the respondent in this regard along with proof, if any. It shall also take into consideration that even if the charge of unauthorized absence was proved before imposing the punishment of removal the authorities should have applied their mind duly to the factum of long services rendered by the respondent, specially as, the misconduct alleged was of unauthorized absence and not of any embezzlement or financial irregularities nor any misbehaviour with any officers and also specially as, consequent to removal, he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits and the entire period of 22 years served by him would stand washed out. All this should also be taken into consideration.
(6) For the reasons aforesaid, we set-aside the impugned orders. Consequently, Original Application No. 350 of 2008 is restored to its original number for its reconsideration and shall be listed before the Tribunal within next three weeks.
(7) Application for impleadment filed by the petitioners on 12th January, 2009, which was not disposed of by the Tribunal, stands allowed as it has not been opposed by the counsel for the respondent. Necessary corrections shall be made by the respondent/applicant in the array of parties in the O.A. The Counsel for the Railway is already represented, therefore, he shall seek instructions and file supplementary pleadings, if any, in response to the OA and thereafter the matter shall be heard and disposed of as per law keeping in mind what has to be stated hereinabove, at the earliest, say within eight months.
(8) With the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is allowed.
( Om Prakash Shukla, J. ) ( Rajan Roy, J. )
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Ajit
