Union Of India And Others vs Shri Ram Janam Pal
2021 Latest Caselaw 4925 Cal

  17
20.09.2021
   TN

                                 W.P.C.T. No. 38 of 2019
                                  IA No: CAN 1 of 2021

                                  (Via video conference)


                                Union of India and others
                                           Vs.
                                 Shri Ram Janam Pal


                   Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee,
                   Mr. Abhra Mukherjee
                                                  .... for the petitioners

                   Mr. Jagadish Ranjan Das

                                                 .... for the respondent

The writ petition and the application for

expeditious disposal of the same are taken up for hearing

together. Since sufficient urgency has been made out for

hearing the main writ petition, the application for early

disposal, bearing CAN 1 of 2021, is allowed without costs.

In the main writ petition, learned counsel for the

petitioners contends that the respondent had given a

fraudulent impression at the time of joining service on the

ground of compassionate appointment, that his father

had expired, precisely on which ground he was taken in

service.

However, it is submitted that subsequently during

May 22, 1995 till May 29, 1995, when the respondent

was on leave, it was discovered that the father of the

complainant was actually alive. Accordingly, a First

Information Report (FIR) was lodged on May 24, 1995 and

a criminal case was initiated against the respondent and

his alleged father. Both the respondent and his father, it

is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioners, were

arrested on May 27, 1995, but subsequently one of the

accused, being the alleged father of the respondent,

absconded and has since been absconding.

It is further contended that the respondent applied

for a review of the order of suspension as late as 21 years

after the suspension. Hence, the tribunal acted without

jurisdiction in entertaining such belated application at

all.

That apart, the petitioners submit that the criminal

trial has been stalled for an indefinitely long period and

charges have not yet been framed, due to the dilatory

tactics adopted by the accused persons. As such, the

order of the tribunal, it is argued, ought to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent categorically

contends, by placing reliance on certain documents

annexed at pages 41 and 42 of the writ petition, being

respectively a certificate issued by the Doctor who had

allegedly attended the respondent's father at the relevant

point of time, and a Death Certificate issued by the

Government of Uttar Pradesh, indicating that the father

of the present respondent had expired on August 9, 1991,

that the respondent had not resorted to falsity while

stating about the demise of his father while applying for

compassionate appointment.

Although learned counsel for the petitioners takes

an objection on such score, by pointing out that the

Death Certificate was obtained only on February 18,

2010, we do not find any direct bearing of such fact in the

context of the case.

Learned counsel for the respondent further argues

that Rule 5 of the relevant Rules, that is, the Railway

Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, was

referred to by the tribunal in its impugned order, along

with Sub-Rule 6 thereof, which indicates that a railway

servant is deemed to be suspended with effect from the

date of detention, if he is detained custody, whether on a

criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48

hours. However, such deemed suspension shall not be

valid after a period of 90 days, unless it is extended after

review in the manner provided in Sub-Rule 7 of the

relevant Rules.

It is seen from the order of the tribunal that the

tribunal rightly proceeded on the premise that, since no

such review was undertaken at the end of the petitioners,

the deemed suspension automatically spent its force and,

as such, was justified in directing the present petitioners

to pass suitable order revoking the suspension of the

applicant and granting him appropriate benefits in

accordance with law by issuing a reasoned and speaking

order.

The other argument advanced by the petitioners, as

regards the alleged delay of 21 years in the respondent in

filing the review application, does not hold water since the

illegality committed was on the part of the petitioners

themselves and has been continuing de die in diem, from

the date on which the deemed suspension stood

automatically revoked till today. In fact, the respondent

reached his age of superannuation in the meantime, on

July 31, 2020.

In such view of the matter, we do not find any fault

in the direction given by the tribunal in the impugned

order.

Accordingly, W.P.C.T. No.38 of 2019 is dismissed,

thereby affirming the judgment and order dated July 20,

2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.350/00322/2017 (M.A.

No.350/00201/2017) and directing the petitioners to

pass suitable order revoking the suspension of the

applicant and grant him appropriate benefits, including

retiral benefits, to which the respondent is entitled to in

accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking

order, within November 30, 2021. The time-frame

stipulated herein is mandatory and peremptory.

The parties shall act on the communication of the

learned Advocates of the parties, accompanied by server

copies of this order, without insisting upon prior

production of a certified copy thereof, for the purpose of

compliance of the same.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Jay Sengupta, J.)