Fraudulent appointments are treated as non-est in law, and no inquiry is necessary before termination. The court reinforced that a wrongdoer cannot benefit from their fraud.

AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL]

1. The present Original application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985, has been filed to set - aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2016, whereby applicant has been dismissed from the railway service without Service benefits. So also the applicant seeking direction to the respondents to pay salary and calculate the retirement benefits.

PRAYER

2. The applicant has claimed following reliefs (as extracted from the OA):

(1) “To direct the respondent authorities for set-aside the impugned order dt. 19.7.16 with immediate effect.

(2) To direct the respondent authorities to pay salary and calculate the retirement benefit of the applicant and pay the same.”

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. Briefly, stated the facts as adumbrated by the applicant are that on the basis of screened panel of casual labour approved on 31.07.1991 he was appointed on 19.08.2000 on the post of store khalasi. The case of applicant is that he was among 1213 screened casual labourers of Engineering Department, Darbhanga Sub-division on basis of total working days on 31.12.1979 and on his turn appointed on 19.08.2000. The sister-in-law of applicant Musmat Nussera Khatoon lodged complain and Railway Board vide letter dated 17.06.2014 forwarded to the Zonal Railway. The vigilance department of the Railway held enquiry against the applicant and applicant was served with notice and appeared in the enquiry.

4. The sister-in-law of the applicant in the written complain to the Railway Board stated that her husband Late Md. Taslim was murdered and died on 25.11.1995 and the present applicant is working fraudulently in fake name of her husband. The sister-in-law of the applicant further stated during enquiry that initially her husband worked casual labour in the Railway and after death of her husband, the applicant in the OA, brother of her husband somehow received offer of appointment in the name of Md. Taslim and joined on fake name, whereas the applicant in fact is the real brother of deceased Md. Taslim alias Mohammed Yaseen.

5. It is also the case of present applicant in OA that show cause notice dated 09.5.2016 and 14.05.2016 were issued and reply dated 16.03.2016 and 21.05.2016 respectively were filed and without considering the stand of the applicant. The impugned order dated 19.07.2016 issued terminating services, without the following procedure under Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Rules, 1968). The applicant retired on 31^st August 2016 devoid of retirement benefits.

6. Per contra, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing the written statement, wherein they have submitted that the applicant while working on the post of Track Maintainer under the SSE/P-way Sakri in fake name of Md. Taslim son of Md. Jan. The wife of the Late Md. Taslim and real sister-in-law of the applicant lodged complaint to the Railway Board. The Railway Board on 17.06.2014 forwarded the complai