The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough examination of an employee's service history and qualifying service when considering a voluntary retirement scheme application, and the court's authority to set aside decisions based on inadequate consideration of relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated August 07, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in the Original Application being O.A. 1600/2018 (`OA', for short), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the OA filed by the petitioner by holding the following in paragraph 5 of the impugned order:-

"5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record, we find that the applicant has submitted his VRS application on 1.10.2016 and thereafter without waiting for its acceptance proceeded on leave. It is general practice that once an employee has given notice for VRS, he has to wait for its acceptance by the employer and cannot abscond from his duties. If at all, it was his intention to proceed on leave, he could have applied for the leave of the kind due to him. Having failed to do so, he cannot take it for granted that his VRS application was accepted and he is deemed to have been retired voluntarily. Through the impugned annexure A/1 order, the respondents have even disputed his qualifying service so as to enable him to apply for voluntary retirement, which according to them comes to 18 years 4 months and 14 days and as per Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993, a railway employee is entitled to retire voluntarily after he completes 20 years of service. As the applicant has not completed 20 years of service, he was not eligible for voluntary retirement and the respondents have rightly rejected his claim for grant of VRS. It is also brought on record by the respondents that after the order of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant was directed to be taken on duty but the applicant has not reported for duty. Hence, there is no substance in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed in the then Central Railway (now North Central Railway) on the post of Jeep Driver which is a Group C post on October 23, 1980. He was promoted to the post of Vehicle Driver, Grade II on December 22, 2003. Subsequently, he was posted as Gangman on January 14, 2004 at Agra Cantt.

3. He filed an O.A. 1014/2004 before the Tribunal against his reversion to the post of Group D from Group C. The Tribunal granted interim relief vide its order dated April 28, 2004 and directed the respondents not to give effect to the order of reversion. It was his case that, despite multiple requests, he was not taken on duty. Finally, he withdrew O.A. 1014/2004. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.4 issued a charge sheet dated October 19, 2004 for unauthorised absence (of the petitioner) from May 03, 2004 to October 03, 2004. It appears that the respondents have directed the petitioner to submit medical documents issued by Railway Hospital. The petitioner filed O.A. 1129/2006 before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal which was disposed of on September 01, 2008 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order.

4. On October 23, 2008, the petitioner was directed to report for his duty in Unit No. 49. It was his case that, in compliance of the directions in letter dated October 23, 2008, he submitted his joining on November 07, 2008 before Permanent Way Inspector but he was not permitted to join the duty. The petitioner filed an O.A. 1425/2008 before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in respect of his joining.

5. The O.A. was disposed of on February 06, 2009 with a direction to the respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated June 11, 2009 holding that the petitioner neither reported for duty nor submitted medical certificate and as SF-Form No.5, has already been issued to him, he was not considered for reinstatement and to receive the sa