Judgement

S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. :- Leave granted in these petitions.

2. By consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties the appeals were taken up for final hearing.

3. The short question involved in these three appeals is as to whether the respondent-workmen who had obtained employment in Railway service run by appellant-Union of India, on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards could be continued in Railway service once such fraud was detected by the Railway authorities. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench has taken the view that as the aforesaid misconduct of the respondent-Railway employees does not fall within the forecorners of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the orders of removal from service passed against the respondents could not be sustained and they were entitled to be reinstated in Railway service with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal is brought on the anvil of scrutiny in the present proceedings moved by the appellant-Union of India and the concerned Railway authorities under whom the respondent-workmen worked at the relevant time.

4. The Tribunal in the impugned judgments has placed reliance on its earlier decision in O.A. No. 892 of 1993 decided on 22 and June 1994 for taking the view that such misconduct would not attract Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of the Rules. It is not in dispute between the parties that the concerned respondent-workmen had got employment in Railway by producing bogus and forged casual labourer service cards purportied to have been issued by their earlier employers. However, according to the Tribunal such a misconduct would not attract Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) of the Rules as the concerned employee even though engaged as a casual employee could not be said to be governed by the Rules at the time when he obtained such employment and that he was not guilty of any misconduct committed during the Railway service.

5. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal can be better appreciated in the light of the relevant provisions of the Rule itself. Rule 3(1) reads as under :

"3. General ;- (1) Every railway servant shall at all times-

(i) maintain absolute integrity ;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and

(iii) do nothing which is subversion of law and order and is unbecoming of a railway or government servant,"

Now it is not doubt true that on the express language of the Rule the concerned Railway servant has to maintain absolute integrity and has not to do anything which is subversion of law and order and which is unbecoming a of railway or a government servant. That would certainly apply to a railway servant who is alleged to have misconducted himself while in Railway service. However, learned senior counsel for appellants vehemently submitted that the misconduct alleged in the present case, of snatching railway employment on the basis of bogus certificates or casual labourer cards, would indeed show that the concerned employee had exhibited a conduct which was unbecoming of a railway servant.

6. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the applicability of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) on the facts of the present cases for the simple reason that in our view the concerned railway employees, respondents herein have admittedly snatched employment in Railway service, may be of a casual nature, by relying upon forged or bogus casual and upon forged or bogus casual labourer cards. The unauthenticity of the service cards on the basis of which they got employment is clearly established on record of the departmental enquiry held against the concerned employees. Consequently, it has to be held that respondents were guilty of misrepresentation and fraud perpetrated on the appellant-employer while getting employed in Railway service and had snatched such employment which would not have been made available to them if they were not armed with such bogus and forged lab