Delhi High Court
Uoi & Ors. vs Jwala Prasad on 7 May, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1903/2010
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2010
UOI & Ors. .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Versus
Jwala Prasad .... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner, Union of India through General Manager,
Northern Railway and Ors. has impugned the order dated 27th July,
2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in OA No. 975/2008 titled as Sh. Jwala Prasad Vs. Union of
India through General Manager and Ors., allowing the Original
Application of the respondent and treating the period from 29th July,
2002 to 23rd October, 2003 as a period spent on duty for all purposes
including pay and allowances.
On account of a train accident, minor penalty was imposed
upon the respondent which was later on enhanced to compulsory
retirement, which was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal
and thereafter a revision.
The enhanced punishment of compulsory retirement was set
aside in the appeal and the revision and was reduced to reduction in
the lower grade for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
While reducing the penalty, it was, however, held that the intervening
period be treated as leave without pay.
The respondent had challenged the order dated 23rd October,
2003, directing treating the intervening period as leave without pay
being in violation of a Statutory Rule on the ground that the
responsibility for the accident was only on both the Cabin ASMs, who
have been punished with removal from service in July, 2002, which
punishment was also reduced. In the circumstances, it was contended
that treating the intervening period as leave without pay could not be
imposed.
It was contended that DRM, Jhansi was directed by the
Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent within two months by
passing detailed and reasoned order. He, however, enhanced the
penalty from reduction of the pay scale of 5000-8000 to Rs. 4500-7000
with compulsory retirement without giving any reasons, which was set
aside by the Revisional Authority. However, the intervening period was
directed by the Revisional Authority to be treated as leave without pay
is also in violation of the statutory Rules contained in Indian Railway
Establishment Code, Volume-2.
The Tribunal noted these facts as well as provisions of Rule
1342, 1343 & 1344 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.-2 and
noticing that the delay was not directly attributable to the respondent
and therefore, the Tribunal allowed the original application of the
respondent holding that intervening period from 29th July, 2002 to 23rd
October, 2003 cannot be treated as leave of any kind of the respondent
and directed the period to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes
including pay and allowances.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order
contending that perusal of the record will show the culpability of the
respondent also in the accident and in the circumstances, the Tribunal
is not justified in directing the petitioner to treat the intervening period
as spent on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances.
As to what is the extent of culpability of the respondent, is not
to be gone into by this Court at this juncture when the punishment of
compulsory retirement has already been set aside and only the
punishment of reduction to a lower grade for two years without
cumulative effect was awarded. The only dispute is whether the period
from 29th July, 2002 to 23rd October, 2003 is to be treated as a leave
without pay. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that DRM,
Jhansi violated the directions of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal
within two months leading to delay and the order passed by DRM,
Jhansi ordering the compulsory retirement was also set aside and only
the penalty of reduction in the lower grade for two years was awarded,
therefore, relying on Rule 1343(FR-54) proviso has held that the period
be treated as spent on duty for all purposes as it has not been
established that proceedings instituted were delayed on account of the
respondent or for any reason attributable to him.
In the circumstances, this Court does not find any such
illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal, which will require
any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is therefore, without any merit and it is,
therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MAY 07, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
