[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India vs Shiv Karan Nimal ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1279/2024
Shiv Karan Nimal S/o Shri Sultan Ram Nimal, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Village And Po- Bhorki, Tehsil- Gudhagorji,
Distt- Jhunjhunu- 333032, (M- 7597359036), Last Employed On
The Post Of Goods Gurad In The Office Of Station Manager, Abu
Road, Nwr.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North-Western
Railway, Hqrs. Jaipur Zone, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur
Pin 302002.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer
Division, Ajmer- 305001.
3. Senior Divisional Operation Manager, North Western
Railway, Ajmer Division, Ajmer- 305001.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19587/2024
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North-Western
Railway, Hqrs. Jaipur Zone, Chainpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer
Division, Ajmer.
3. Senior Divisional Operation Manager, North Western
Railway, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
Shiv Karan Nimal S/o Shri Sultan Ram Nimal, Aged About 39
Years, R/o 539-E, Panch Bunglow, Railway Colony, Abu Road, At
Present Employed On The Post Of Goods And Guard In The Office
Of Station Manager, Abu Road, Nwr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Kaushik
Mr. Nimesh Suthar (CWP
No.19587/2024)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nimesh Suthar
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:39:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
Mr. Jai Kumar Kaushik (CWP
No.1279/2024)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
08/04/2026
1. The present proceedings arise out of two writ petitions
emanating from the common order dated 06.11.2023 passed in
O.A. No. 290/00231/2013, whereby the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by
the employee and set aside his termination from the post of Goods
Guard, without granting consequential benefits. Aggrieved
thereby, the Union of India has assailed the setting aside of the
termination, while the employee has challenged the said order on
the ground that although reinstatement was granted, the Tribunal
failed to address the issue of back wages and consequential
benefits.
2. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the
employee was appointed as Goods Guard on 22.08.2007 after due
selection. He was subjected to periodic medical examinations and
was found fit, including on 30.09.2011. No advice was given to
him to use spectacles.
2.1. Subsequently, upon experiencing certain eye-related issues,
the employee was required to submit a declaration in Form No. 8,
which he furnished on 10.10.2012. In response to a query therein,
he disclosed that approximately 7-8 years prior, he had
undergone LASIK procedure at a private hospital in Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
2.2. On the basis of the said disclosure, a show-cause notice
dated 16.04.2013 was issued alleging concealment of material
facts at the time of initial appointment. Thereafter, the services of
the employee were terminated vide order dated 23.05.2013.
2.3. The employee challenged the same by filing OA
No.290/00231/2013, which was allowed in the following terms:
"6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and material available on record, it
emerges that the applicant was appointed on the post of
Goods Guard after due process of selection. It also
emerges that the post of Goods Guard belongs to A/2
medical category. It is also not in dispute that the
declaration Forms to be submitted by the employees
before joining for A/1 and A/2 medical categories are
different. The employees belonging to A/1 medical
category are required to answer specifically to the
question whether he has undergone intraocular/contact
lens/surgery, whereas, this column does not exist for the
employees belonging to A/2 medical category. The
declaration form required to be filled up by employees
belonging to A/2 medical category require answers to the
question '(i) Any other disease/accident requiring
confinement to bed and prolonged medical or surgical
treatment'
After perusing the above question, we see that by
answering to the above question, the candidates are
required to disclose such type of disease or accident which
confines them to bed or leading to prolonged medical or
surgical treatment. The declaration form including this
question does not speak about any procedure of 'lasik
laser' undergone by the candidate before joining the
services on A/2 medical category post. Moreover. without
perusing the medical papers of the applicant, it cannot be
concluded that the applicant undergone any surgery in his
eyes. The applicant also did not say that he undergone
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
any surgery but as per information furnished by him, he
had undergone 'lasik laser procedure' in his both eye. In
absence of any specific question in the declaration form
regarding 'lasik laser procedure', it is not correct to say
that the applicant played fraud on the respondents
for obtaining employment.
Further, holding the applicant guilty of such serious
charge of concealment of material facts, the respondents
should have adopted the due process of law. It is not
permissible to terminate the services of the applicant by
giving him mere an opportunity to file reply to the show-
cause notice. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
provides as under:
311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons
employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State -
"(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in
which he has been informed of the charges against him
and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of those charges:
[Provided that where it is proposed after such
inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such
penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence
adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary
to give such person any opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall not apply-]
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in
rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove
a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for
some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing,
it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry, or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may
be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the
State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry."
In the present matter no reason has been mentioned for
terminating the services of the applicant without inquiry,
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is
against the principles of service jurisprudence.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that the respondents acted illegally while
terminating the services of the applicant on the ground of
concealment of material facts in the declaration form,
which does not even contain any specific question
regarding treatment of eyes, that too without holding any
disciplinary proceedings.
Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the
applicant, after joining the duties in the year 2008, was
performing his duties as usual till year 2012 when he
developed some complications in his eyes. The doctors of
the railway department also issued fitness certificates to
him after periodical examinations. The record does not
reveal that he has been declared unfit after his medical
examination at Delhi.
7. In the result, the Impugned order is not sustainable in
the eyes of law. Therefore,, while allowing the OA,
Impugned order dated 23.05.2013 (Annex.A/1)
terminating the services of the applicant on the post of
Goods Guard is quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to reinstate the applicant within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. It is made clear that the respondents will proceed
further after getting him examined by Medical Board.
8. OA is thus allowed with no orders as to costs."
3. Learned counsel for the Union of India, Mr. Suthar, submits
that the learned Tribunal has erred in setting aside the termination
order. It is contended that the employee, at the time of initial
appointment, failed to disclose that he had undergone LASIK
procedure, despite a specific query in the declaration form
requiring disclosure of any disease or medical/surgical treatment
necessitating confinement to bed and prolonged treatment.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
3.1. He further drew attention of the Court to the declaration
form (Page 37), wherein the relevant query was worded as "any
other disease or accident requiring confinement to bed and
prolonged medical or surgical treatment", and was answered in
the negative. It is submitted that the employee was under an
obligation to disclose the said LASIK procedure accordingly. The
omission, according to learned counsel, amounts to suppression of
material facts, thereby justifying the termination.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the employee, Mr. Kaushik,
submits that the scope of the query in the declaration form was
limited to diseases or accidents requiring confinement to bed and
prolonged medical or surgical treatment. It is contended that
LASIK is neither a disease nor a procedure requiring any
prolonged treatment or confinement, and therefore, did not fall
within the ambit of the said query. Consequently, there was no
suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the employee.
4.1. Learned counsel for the employee further submits that the
employee has, in the meantime, been appointed as Lecturer in
Political Science on 14.06.2017 pursuant to his selection through
the RPSC.
5. Having considered the submissions and perused the material
on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning adopted
by the learned Tribunal. The declaration form required disclosure
only of such conditions which involved confinement to bed or
prolonged medical or surgical treatment. LASIK, being a short-
duration procedure not requiring any such confinement, did not
fall within the ambit of the said query.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
6. In view of the above, the writ petition preferred by the Union
of India, challenging the setting aside of the termination order,
deserves to be dismissed.
7. Coming to the writ petition preferred by the employee, the
grievance is confined to the denial of consequential benefits,
particularly back wages. It is not in dispute that the employee has
since been appointed as Lecturer in Political Science on
14.06.2017 pursuant to selection by the RPSC. In such
circumstances, reinstatement, though ordered by the Tribunal,
cannot be practically effectuated.
8. This Court is thus faced with a situation where the
termination has been held illegal, but reinstatement is neither
feasible nor sought to be pressed. In such circumstances, the
appropriate course would be to award reasonable compensation in
lieu of reinstatement ordered by the learned CAT.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Union of India has
drawn the attention of this Hon'ble Court to the appointment order
(Page 55), indicating that the petitioner was placed in the pay
scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000 (R.P.), and has further submitted that
the gross monthly salary of the petitioner at the time of
termination in the year 2012 was Rs. 26,494/-. Taking the said
figure as the benchmark, the loss of earnings is to be computed
for the period from the date of termination till the date of his
subsequent appointment as Lecturer on 14.06.2017.
9.1. While computing such amount, this Court finds that since the
reinstatement is not possible, it would be appropriate, in the
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16260-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-1279/2024]
interest of justice, to modify the relief by granting 50% of the
wages for the intervening period.
9.2. On the basis of the last drawn salary of Rs. 26,494/- per
month, the daily wage works out to approximately Rs. 883/-
(26,494 ÷ 30), and for the period from 23.05.2013 to 14.06.2017
(approximately 1483 days), the total wages come to about Rs.
13,09,682/-. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of
the said amount, which comes to approximately Rs. 6,54,841/-,
and the same shall be paid within a period of three months from
today.
10. Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
19-20-nishantk/Nirmala-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:31:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
