Authorities must provide cogent justification and adhere to procedural fairness in promotion cancellations, as required by natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The writ petition (W.P.C.T. 204 of 2024) has been filed by the Railway Authorities challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (in short ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. 746 of 2023.

2. The writ petition (W.P.C.T. 242 of 2024) filed by Anup Mondal and Others, applicants before the Tribunal are being considered analogous/ together, as both writ petitions are arising out of same cause of action i.e. order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 00746 of 2023 dated 14.05.2024.

3. The Tribunal has set aside the alleged speaking order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Central DPO/KIR for DRM (P)/KIR, passed in purported compliance of order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier O.A. No. 509 of 2023 filed by the applicants. The Tribunal has also set aside the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the DPO for DRM (P)/KIR whereby and whereunder the result/ panel of Goods Guard dated 08.12.2022 , for appointment against 15% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota was cancelled on alleged “administrative account”.

4. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition/s are not in dispute. The selection process was initiated for the post of Goods Guard against the 15% LDCE quota by a notification dated 01.12.2021. The applicants are permanent railway employees under the regular Non-Ministerial Operation and Commercial Department posted under different Station Master. They fulfilled the eligibility criteria for participating in the selection process by way of promotion for the post of Goods Guard under the LDCE quota (15%). The applicants participated therein and based on merit in the written test, the panel was approved containing 27 successful candidates including the applicants. The panel was published on 08.12.2022. After successful completion of medical examination, the applicants, before being posted on the promotional post of Goods Guard, were sent for requisite training on 20.03.2023. While the applicants were undergoing the 50 days training, the panel was suddenly cancelled by the respondent authorities, vide office order dated 17.04.2023. Cancellation is allegedly based on a complaint made by certain candidates, leading to a vigilance enquiry into the matter. The Vigilance Report allegedly indicated a state of affairs, which necessitated cancellation of the promotion granted to the applicants.

5. The learned counsel for the Railways submitted that since there was a vigilance report, the authorities could not overlook the same, and were under a legal obligation to cancel such promotion granted to the applicants. They have given a notice to the candidates on 12.04.2023, and after giving them an opportunity of hearing, have passed the final order on 23.05.2023. The authorities have, thus, observed due fairness in the matter.

6. The Tribunal, therefore, has misdirected itself in concluding that there was no basis for cancellation of the promotional process, and that procedural fairness was not observed in cancellation of the promotional process.

7. The findings to this extent are unsustainable and, therefore, the directions as a consequence of such unsustainable findings are also liable to be set aside. The order of the Tribunal, according to the learned counsel for the Railways, is unsustainable. He has relied upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Dileshwar Kumar and othe