Bombay High Court
Union Of India Through General ... vs Prabavati P Rembulkar on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-OS:1975-DB
4-WPL.3543.2023
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3543 OF 2023
Union of India & Anr. } Petitioner
Versus
Prabhavati R. Rembulkar & Ors. } Respondents
Ms. Sangeeta S. Yadav for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.&
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: MARCH 27, 2023
P.C.:
1. We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners.
2. The respondents had filed original application for release of
pensionary and other benefits. The Central Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for
short) allowed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioners strenuously
contends that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the present
petitioners had never issued letter of appointment to the original
applicant. The original applicant also could not place on record
the genuine appointment letter. It was a fraud played by the
original applicant upon the Railway Department. The original
applicant entered into the service on the basis of fraudulent
documents. The said engagement itself is null and void as well as
he has no right to claim pensionary benefits. 30 employees joined
in the MTP(R) office between May 1989 and April 1992 on
production of transfer orders issued by the Chief Personnel
4-WPL.3543.2023
Officer S & T and Mechanical (CPOS & T and CPO/Mech.).
However, genuineness of the transfer orders produced by these
employees were verified by Construction Organization only in
2001 and in 2004 and found that they were fake. Charge sheets
were issued to them for producing fake and fabricated documents.
Such a person should not be kept in service and he is liable to be
dismissed.
4. The Tribunal has observed that the original applicant was
engaged as bungalow peon in the office of Deputy CPHE, Central
Railway after medical examination on 14th November 1988. He
was also issued "Medical Fit" Certificate No. 229575. The same is
also endorsed in the service book. He had gained temporary
status after working for 120 days in the Railways. He was also
given the casual labour card. The applicant was screened and
found suitable for absorption as per letter dated 28th December
1989. He was engaged to work at various locations. He was again
screened on 28th December 1989 as per service record. He was
transferred to Metropolitan Transport Project. The applicant was
assigned Provident Fund number. A Charge Memorandum was
issued on 25th October 2004. The same was pending till 28th
February 2008. In the said departmental inquiry, the inquiry
officer concluded that Charge No. 1 is not proved and the
appointment of the applicant was through proper selection
process, through physical test and medical examination. Though
the said finding was arrived at in the year 2008, thereafter, on 6th
February 2017, the original respondent no. 2 invoked the Charge
Memorandum. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty in the
year 2017. The penalty was reducing the applicant to the lower
time scale of pay, grade, post without restoration to the grade
from which he has been reduced.
4-WPL.3543.2023
5. Once the punishment was imposed upon the original
applicant, the same does not seem to have been challenged by the
original applicant. In view of that, as no punishment was imposed
upon the applicant of removal or dismissal, the Tribunal directed
to release the pensionary benefits along with all other retiral
benefits.
6. The Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the
SALUNKE
JV impugned judgment. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Digitally signed
by SALUNKE J V
Date: 2023.03.28
17:55:54 +0530
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
