Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–The Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway is the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is filed being aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur dated 16.12.1999 in O.A. No. 475/1994, quashing the order of removal of the non-petitioner Ummed Singh from service dated 3.9.93 and the order of the appellate authority dated 9.11.1993 and directing the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment to be awarded for the alleged misconduct in the light of the observations made in the order.

(2). We have heard Shri Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the records and also the order impugned in this writ petition as well as the grounds of the writ petition. The only charge against the respondent was that he was continuously absent from duty from 1.6.91 to 8.12.92 i.e. nearly about one year and seven months. According to the petitioners, while the respondent discharging the duty, he was sanctioned leave for one day namely for 23.5.91. However, the respondent had reported on duty on 9.12.92. Looking to the absence of the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of removal on 3.9.93 and the same was maintained by the appellate authority by passing the order dated 9.11.1993. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the appellate authority contending that he was not given opportunity of hearing/defence and that he had been punished on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The respondent has further submitted that the order of the appellate authority is also a non-speaking order and thus, looking to the above facts coupled with the fact that the order of punishment so passed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Reply to the O.A. was submitted by the petitioners herein and respondents therein before the Tribunal.

(3). We have perused the reply. In the reply, it has been stated that the respondent had failed to send any intimation and he remained absent till he was finally issued the charge sheet. It has been stated in the reply that the penalty of removal imposed upon the respondent for the charge of absent was rightly imposed and it is not disproportionate as alleged. It is further averred that the rules and procedure of the inquiry has been followed and that the respondent was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

(4). The Tribunal after noticing the brief facts of the case as stated in the application and in the reply filed by the Union of India and after referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the order of removal dated 3.9.93 and appellate authoritys order dated 9.11.93 cannot sustain and consequently directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the respondent for the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal felt that the punishment imposed on the respondent is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Referring to the judgments reported in Union of India vs. Kulamoni Mohanty & Ors. (1) and Govt. of A.P. vs. B. Ashok Kumar (2), the Tribunal had felt that it had no jurisdiction to interfere on the ground of punishment and therefore, had remitted the matter to the employer.

(5). Being aggrieved, the Union of India and two others have preferred the present writ petition.

(6). Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the direction so given by the Tribunal is wholly illegal and in as much as the matter could have been sent to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration without quashing the order of removal but once the order of removal is quashed that too the order passed in the year 1993, the employee would have to be paid for the intervening period without any work. He would further submit that the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the material on record. He has further submitted that from a bare perusal of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document