JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally.

2. The Union of India set up a challenge to the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai (Tribunal) in Original Application No. 148 of 2006. The Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority and has directed reinstatement of respondent from the date of his removal from service. Petitioners have been further directed to determine the treatment to be given to the period from the date of removal to reinstatement. Respondent has been directed to be given all consequential benefits. When the present petition came up on 20th December 2011, this court while admitting the petition, stayed the order of Tribunal. On account of stay granted by this court, the order of Tribunal has not been implemented.

3. Respondent, while working as a Senior Booking Clerk in the Mumbai Division of Central Railway, was served with memorandum of charge sheet dated 15th March 2001. It was alleged in the charge sheet that he was found in possession with 24 earlier issued and accounted for tickets with an intention to resell them. It was further alleged that during vigilance check, an amount of Rs.300/- was found excess in his private cash and an amount of Rs.52.50 was found in short in railway cash. After holding departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave report dated 26th September 2001 holding all three charges leveled against respondent as proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 14th December 2001 holding respondent guilty of all the 3 charges and imposed penalty of removal from service on him. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 5th March 2002. Revision petition filed by respondent was rejected by order dated 14th January 2005.

4. Respondent approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.148 of 2006. The original application was resisted by Petitioners by filing affidavit in reply. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, was pleased to allow the original application by its judgment and order dated 25th November 2010 setting aside the orders dated 14th December 2001, 4th February 2002 and 14th January 2005 directing reinstatement of respondent from the date of removal. The petitioners are directed to treat the intervening period and respondent is directed to be paid all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the Railways have filed the present petition.

5. Appearing for petitioners, Mr. Garge the learned counsel would submit that the original application filed by respondent was barred by limitation. That the order of Revising Authority was passed on 14th January 2005 whereas the original application was filed on 3rd March, 2006. That in absence of any application for condonation of delay, the tribunal could not have condoned the delay in filing the original application. Mr. Garge would further submit that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Enquiry Authority are supported by evidence on record and that the Tribunal erroneously interfered in those findings.

6. Mr. Garge would further submit that provisions of paragraph No.704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual are merely in the nature of guidelines and cannot be enforced as if they are statutory rules. In support of his contention Mr. Garge would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad & Ors. vs. G. Ratnam & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 212. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in S. S. Dube vs. Union of India & Ors, Manu/UP/2956/2017. He would also rely upon judgment of this court in Vijay Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No.9253 of 2019 decided on 12th October 2022.

7. Mr. Garge would further submit that no prejudice is caused to respond