Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member

By way of filing the present Original Application,

the applicant, Shri R.P. Meena, has prayed for the

following reliefs: -

2

“1.That the humble applicant most respectfully

prayed to please quash and set-a-side the

impugned order (Annexure A/1) for equity and

justice having been issued in violation of the

section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunal Act,

1985 by treating the applicant on different

yardsticks to that of respondent no. 3.

2. That it is also prayed to deal the respondent No.

1 & 2 for their willful acts of discrimination while

dealing the case of the applicant to that of the

respondent No. 3.

3. Any other relief this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem

fit may please be granted in favor of the

applicant.”

2(a). Brief facts of the case, as stated by the

applicant, is that he was also made to compulsory

retirement on pre-mature basis along with respondent

no. 3 by respondent no. 1 and orders were provided

through respondent no. 2. The applicant states that

that representation dated 23.12.2019 preferred by

respondent no. 3 to the Secretary, Railway Board

instead of Hon’ble President of India along with

operative part of the Court order dated 24.12.2019,

which prove that respondent no. 3 was not acquitted

honorably in the case of corruption filed against him

which led to his name in the agreed and secret lists

which stands the same as on today as per exceptional

clause

of

the

vigilance

manual.

Subsequently,

representation dated 19.06.2021 has been preferred

by the applicant to Hon’ble President of India for his

3

personal

attention.

The

representations

of

the

respondent no. 3 must have been addressed to

Hon’ble President of India only as in one of the case

respondent No. 1 & 2 have categorically directed the

applicant

to

give

an

undertaking

that

his

representation should be treated as addressed to

Hon’ble President of India.

2(b). The applicant further states that subsequently

during pendency of representation dated 23.12.2019,

respondent no. 3 filed an OA No. 522/2020 before this

Bench of the Tribunal and the same was admitted for

adjudication / trial under Section 19 (3) of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant

states that during pendency of OA No. 522/2020,

respondent no. 3 was reinstated vide impugned order

Annexure A/1 dated 05.08.2021 by willfully and

knowingly violating the provisions of Section 19 (4) of

the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He also states

that it can never be thought even by a common man

that on the other side despite applicant’s retirement

was contemplated on incorrect reporting of facts,

respondents picked up the subsequent representation

preferred by him for personal attention of Hon’ble

President of India and fetched a 17 pages minutes in

the shadow of the representation which was not

4

preferred for their consideration but was preferred for

personal attention of the Hon’ble President of India by

elaborating

the

misdeeds

committed

by

the

respondents

while

retiring

vide

order

dated

03.12.2019. Paras of Vigilance Manual establish that

name of respondent no. 3 cannot be excluded from

Agreed & Secret Lists because he was not ‘honorably

acquitted’ as a result of court trial in the corruption

case and his acquittal was based on ‘benefits of

doubts’. The job entrusted to the representation

committee is to ensure that over rigorous standard

were not applied or done out of over-zealousness or

out of political or personal victimization at the time of

the original review and not to apply over rigorous

standard itself to damage the life and career of the

applicant by constructing a fresh review in the shadow

of the representation if preferred by an affected

person for justice. The applicant further states that

official respondents have decided the representation of

the respondent no. 3 mischievously in his favor. The

version stated by respondent no. 3 before this

Tribunal that respondents have issued order for

compassionate appointment, hence,