The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of equity jurisdiction to conclude prolonged litigation and prescribe appropriate punishment in exceptional circumstances.

ORDER :

1. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘Tribunal’) passed separately, in O.A. No. 249 of 2011 and O.A. No. 751 of 2011, but concern the 1st respondent and deal with two separate punishments imposed against the 1st respondent. In W.P. No. 15959 of 2014 petitioners challenge the order of Tribunal in O.A. No. 249 of 2011 setting aside the modified punishment of reduction to lowest post i.e. Pointsman with effect from 04.06.2001 for a period of five years having recurring effect. In W.P. No. 15931 of 2015, petitioners challenge the decision of Tribunal in O.A. No. 751 of 2011 setting aside removal from service.

2. Heard Sri. P. Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Railways and Sri. J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

3. As the parties are same in both the writ petitions, the same is disposed of by this common order.

4. The 1st respondent was appointed as porter in the year 1971 and earned promotion as Pointsman and further promotions. At the relevant point of time, he was working as Deputy Station Superintendent.

5. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1st respondent leveling several charges, ultimately resulted in imposing the punishment of removal from service by order date 04.07.2000. On appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, the punishment was modified to that of reduction to the lowest post of Pointsman to come into effect from 04.06.2001 for a period of five years having recurring effect. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent preferred revision. Pending revision, the 1st respondent joined service as Pointsman on 19.08.2001. With effect from 24.08.2001, he absented from duties. On 02.01.2002 fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated alleging unauthorized absence continuously from 24.08.2001. These disciplinary proceedings resulted in imposing punishment of removal from service on 25.10.2002. These two punishments are challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 249 of 2011 and 751 of 2011.

6. In O.A. No. 249 of 2011, the Tribunal noticed that the first and second charges are the main charges wherein, it was alleged that due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, there was eminent possibility of two trains colliding as they both were allowed to come to the station on the same track. On the first and second charges, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as not proved. The disciplinary authority has not agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, but without communicating the disagreement note and calling for explanation from the 1st respondent, he straight away imposed the punishment of removal from service. Though a vague contention was urged before the appellate authority, it can be safely stated that the plea was not raised on not giving opportunity of communicating the disagreement note. The appellate authority considering other aspects having found that the delinquency alleged is not grave, warranting removal from service, modified the punishment. However, even the modified punishment is on the higher side. The Tribunal having found that the disagreement note was not communicated to the 1st respondent offending his right to rely on the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer and to challenge the disagreement, following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the order of punishment is not sustainable as it denied the opportunity of hearing and violating the principles of natural justice and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the issue after following the due procedure required by law.

7. In O.A. No. 751 of 2011 the Tribunal found that as per the circular instructions issued by the Board on 26.04.1957, a particular mode is indicated to serve notice, if notice sent to the residential address of the employee could not be served. This circular requires pasting of notice on the notice board at the place of last working by the e