JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the second respondent’s order made in I.D.No.66 of 2013 dated 22.05.2014 and 21.12.2015 confirming the orders of the 5th respondent made in No.M/CON/T/1160 dated 05.03.2010 and that of the 4th respondent made in M/CON/C/1160 dated 17/21.05.2010 and that of the 3rd respondent’s order made in No.P(A)94/2010/924 dated 07.12.2010 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits both service and monetary including backwages etc.)

1. Challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.66 of 2013 dated 22.05.2014 and 21.12.2015 respectively, confirming the punishment order issued by the respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Labourer under the Station Superintendent, Madras Central (Southern Railway) on 29.07.1978. He was granted temporary status with effect from 29.11.1978 on completion of four months of continuous service. He was empanelled in the regular post as Porter on 16.03.1984 and further temporarily promoted to the scale of pay of Rs.775 - 1025 on 02.05.1992. While he was working as such, a charge memo pertaining to major penalty proceedings was issued on 06.09.1996 and the charge reads as under:

“Shri G Bhaskaran, S/o.Shri N T Ganesan, impersonated as Shri D Emarose S/o. Shri A.S.Damodara Mudaliar (Retd Senior Parcel Clerk, Madras) and secured employment in Southern Railway and is now working as LRP/MAS. Thus, the person working in the name of Sri D.Emarose, contravened Rule no.3.1(i) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966.”

3. The respondent/Railway Administration has not chosen to file any criminal complaint against the petitioner and appointed an Enquiry Inspector attached to the Vigilance Organization as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against him. The charges were held to be proved and he was dismissed from service on 15.05.1997. The appeal and revision petition filed by him were also rejected.

4. Hence, the petitioner filed an Original Application challenging the above said orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.429 of 2004. The Tribunal by its order dated 10.01.2005 quashed the penalty and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and conduct a fresh and full fledged enquiry and to pass appropriate speaking order.

5. Challenging the order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.429 of 2004, the Railway Administration preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.22355 of 2005 before this Court and this Court on 09.04.2009 remanded the matter and directed the Railway Administration to complete the enquiry within a period of two months form the date commencing from 15.04.2009 and stayed the order of reinstatement. Further, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Senior Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, on 20.04.2009.

6. Eventhough the Senior Personnel Officer was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, he did not examine the two witnesses and proceeded with the third witness and held the charges as proved. The punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on 05.03.2010 and the appeal and revision petition were also rejected on 21.05.2010 and 07.12.2010 respectively. These orders were challenged before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.66 of 2013. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.12.2015 rejected the same.

7. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court on the grounds that it is violative of principles of natural justice, violation of the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the find