Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Raj Kumar Biswas S/o Late Binod Biswas - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 5404 of 2014
Decided On : 13-06-2018
Service Laws – Removal of service – Compassionate Allowance – Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the challenge laid to the order of punishment of removal of service (Annexure-3) passed by the Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Chakradharpur whereunder the applicant/petitioner was removed from service with compassionate allowance equivalent to 2/3rd of pension. – The appellate authority by its order (Annexure-4) had affirmed the punishment and later on, the Divisional Railway Manager, Chakradharpur vide his order dated 16th August, 2008 (Annexure-5) refused to interfere in the orders of punishment in revision. – The applicant had sought reinstatement in service to the post of Technician Grade-I with all consequential benefits and also sought quashing of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. – Learned Tribunal vide impugned order (Annexure-9) passed in O.A. also held that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation as the instant application had been filed after four years from the date of order of the revisional authority. – Held, PW-6, on the other hand, had been declared hostile. – It therefore cannot be said that the accused had been acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and as such prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. – It cannot either be said that there was a hot contest in the criminal trial in such circumstances which ended in acquittal of the applicant. – It is also obvious from the operative portion of the judgment rendered by the judicial magistrate that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. – The accused person got acquitted consequent thereto. – The acquittal of the applicant cannot be said to be honourable in that sense. – The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore cannot come to the aid of the applicant. – Court also do not find any convincing explanation for the delay of four years, on the part of the applicant, in filing the Original Application in 2012 when revisional authority had rejected his revision application on 16th August, 2008 itself. – The applicant seems to have conjured up the explanation on the basis of his representation made before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste which had referred the matter for consideration through letter (Annexure-6) and Annexure-8 – The applicant failed to invoke the statutory remedy available under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 within the period of one year as per Section 21 thereof. – Mere representation before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, in such circumstances, or the plea of mental tension could not amount to sufficient explanation of delay in filing the O.A – In such circumstances, the learned tribunal had reason to hold that Original Application was hopelessly barred by limitation. – Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed in O.A. (R) with M.A. by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi. – Writ Petition Dismissed.
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Tiwari representing the respondent-Railways.
2. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the challenge laid to the order of punishment of removal of service dated 5.10.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Chakradharpur whereunder the applicant/petitioner was removed from service with compassionate allowance equivalent to 2/3rd of pension. The appellate authority by its order dated 24.5.2006 (Annexure-4) had affirmed the punishment and later on, the Divisional Railway Manager, Chakradharpur vide his order dated 16th August, 2008 (Annexure-5) refused to interfere in the orders of punishment in revision. The applicant had sought reinstatement in service to the post of Technician Grade-I with all consequential benefits and also sought quashing of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. Learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 20.2.2014 (Annexure-9) passed in O.A. No. 215 of 2012 (R) with M.A. No. 71 of 2013 (R ) also held that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation as the instant application had been filed after four years from the date of order of the revisional authority.
3. Applicant faced disciplinary proceedings vide memorandum of charges dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure-A/1) for the charges that he while functioning as Technical Grade II(C)/Tata committed serious misconduct by indulging in encashment of death cum retirement gratuity (DCRG) Cheque No. 404948 dated 20.6.1997 of Rs. 26,150/- of Sri Narendra Nath Ex. G.S./Tata by falsely introducing himself as Sri Narendra Nath and thereby violated Para 3 (I) I, II, III of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. As per the statement of imputation of misconduct an FIR bearing Case No. 153/ 2000 dated 27.11.2000 had been registered by the Branch Manager, SBI, Jugsalai–JSR Police Station Jugsalai, JSR that Rly. Cheque no. B404948 dated 20.06.1997 was issued in favour of Sri Narandranath Ex- G.S./Comml/Tata for a sum of Rs. 26,150/- which had been fraudulently deposited in SBI, Jugsalai Branch JSR on 01.07.1997 in an account No. 01190007345 (old account no. 36/8679) by an imposter Sri R.K. Biswas, Technical Grade-II (C&W) Tata after falsely introducing himself as Sri Narendranath and he had also drawn a sum of Rs. 26000 on 18.07.2000. It further alleged that he had confessed to the fraudulent act through a confessional letter to the Branch Manager, SBI, Jugsalai and subsequently deposited the sum of Rs. 26,200/- in the fake account of Sri Narendra Nath on 29th September 2000. The Departmental proceedings ended in the imposition of punishment of his removal from service with compassionate allowance of 2/3rd of his pension.
4. The disciplinary authority came to the finding on the basis of the materials adduced during inquiry and the enquiry report that in the account opening form photograph of the applicant /petitioner had been affixed which he had confirmed being that of his. Sri Gopal Govind Paria, Primary School Teacher who introduced the petitioner to open the new account, had during departmental proceeding identified the petitioner as the person who had approached him in the bank to give witness in his favour to open a savings account in the State Bank of India, Jugsalai Branch. The petitioner in the fact finding inquiry had stated that he had deposited the amount of Rs. 26,000 through Sri M.N. Rao and confirmed it during the departmental proceedings. However, the same was partially incorrect as the amount was deposited by Tulsi Biswas who identified himself as elder brother of the petitioner before the bank authorities. This fact had been mentioned in the Bank Manager’s letter dated 23.11.2000. The copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner on 27.12.2003 with advice to submit his final defence statement. He submitted his final defence statement on 12.1.2004. On consideration of a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
