Departure from regular disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14(ii) RS(D&A) Rules requires specific recorded reasons for impracticability; vague satisfaction invalidates removal order, especially with criminal acquittal for same facts.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in O.A. No.051/00142/2021 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said original application by passing the following directions:

(i) As a consequence of quashing of removal from service order and compulsory retirement order, the applicant should be treated as reinstated from the date of removal till age of supposed superannuation.

(ii) But the Tribunal is fully aware the fact that applicant was not rendered his service claiming such period, hence, this Tribunal will refrain to pass any order with regards to back wages.

(iii) However, since the applicant’s removal/compulsory retirement has been held to violation of Procedure & Rules, hence he cannot be held guilty/responsible to non-rendering his service during this period. Therefore, we find that he is entitled to other retirement benefits by fixation of his notional increment of every year as he might have gained if he remained in service till his superannuation. Thus, his pension may be refixed accordingly.

(iv) This order is to be complied within 90 days from receipt of the copy by respondents.

(v) No order as to costs.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition having been enumerated as per the pleading which is available in the original application needs to be referred here which is as under: It is the case of the applicant (respondent herein) before the learned tribunal that on 01.12.2016 he was posted as Grade-I Machinist in the C & W Workshop, Wheel Lathe Shed at Barwadih, Eastern Central Railway. On that day, he was working the shift from 00:00 to 18:00 hours.

The respondent's (petitioner herein) case stems from a written report filed by Station Manager Murmu Thomas on 01.12.2016, which claimed that at around 3:30 PM, an unidentified passenger in train No. 13026 assaulted a railway staff member, Santosh Kumar, with a hammer at Barwadih Platform No. 2. Santosh Kumar later succumbed to his injuries. In the said report it has been mentioned that the local staff, under the leadership of the applicant, A.K. Sharma, (respondent herein) became agitated and forcibly ousted Station Master Anil Kumar Diwedi and Assistant Station Master Vishwakant Choudhary from their office. The agitated group of over 100 staff members closed the office and continued their protest from 5:00 AM to 1:05 PM, disrupting all railway operations. The Station Manager requested action from the Railway Security Force (RSF) against those involved.

The deceased, Santosh Kumar, was a colleague of the applicant/respondent at Barwadih Station. When the applicant arrived at the station after being advised by the SSE (C & W) In-charge, he found the body of Santosh Kumar on the platform, surrounded by a large crowd. The applicant covered the body with a bedsheet after witnessing that it had not been covered by any cloth. The crowd continued to demand that the accused be handed over to them for revenge.

The Railway Protection Force (RPF) took the assailant into custody, but