CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 3^rd day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

E. Jayaprakash, No.27, Karakkollai, Sethurayan Kudikkadu, Orathanadu. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Pandian Vs

1. Union of India rep by rep by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai.

2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division, Trichy.

3. The Divisional Operating Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division, Trichy.

4. The Assistant Operating Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division, Trichy.

5. The Traffic Inspector, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division, Mayiladuthurai.

6. The Chief Medical Superintendent Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division, Ponmalai .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Vijayaraghavan

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“......... to call for the records relating to the impugned order (1) T/T.195/M. Inpn. TI/MV-9/10-EJP, dated 24.04.2015 (2) T/T.195/M. Inpn. TI/MV-9/10-EJP, dated 21.07.2015 (3) T/T.195/M. Inpn. TI/MV-9/10-

th rd nd EJP, dated 10.01.2017, passed by the 4 , 3 and 2 respondents respectively, imposing a penalty of Removal from Service on the applicant for alleged unauthorised absence and to quash the same consequently to direct the respondents to cancel the penalty of Removal from Service imposed on the applicant and to reinstate the applicant with all consequential service and monetary benefits and to pass such order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The applicant, who was employed as a Sweeper cum Porter (SCP) with the respondents, fell ill with chronic fistula while at his native place and was unable to return to his duty station. Due to his condition, he sought treatment from a retired State Government Doctor, who issued a sick certificate. Despite this, the 4th respondent initiated disciplinary action against the applicant for unauthorized absence by conducting an inquiry and appointing the 5th respondent, who had a vested interest in the case. The inquiry was conducted without adhering to the principles of natural justice, and based on the 5th respondent’s report, the applicant was dismissed by the 4th respondent. The 3rd and 2nd respondents, in their roles as Appellate and Revising Authorities, upheld the penalty without following the applicable rules. Having exhausted all available departmental remedies, the applicant now seeks intervention through this Original Application to ensure justice is served.

3. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was receiving treatment for a fistula and submitted a certificate from a Registered Medical Practitioner in accordance with the applicable rules. This certificate was accepted by the competent authority without any request for verification, as there were no doubts about its authenticity. Consequently, the applicant was correctly marked as Sick/PMC from 02.06.2014 to 31.08.2014 by the Station Superintendent, who was the custodian of the Muster Roll.

4. The counsel further argued that after the Station Superintendent retired on 31.08.2014, the new Superintendent continued to mark the applicant as Sick/PMC from 01.09.2014 to 08.09.2014. However, the 5th respondent, the Traffic Inspector, instructed the new Station Superintendent to alter the Muster Roll, retroactively marking the applicant as Absent/PMC for the period from 01.09.2014 to 08.09.2014. This alteration was admitted during the Inquiry Proceedings, specifically in response to Question No. 17.

5. The counsel further argued that the 5th respondent, the Section Traffic Inspector, coerced the successor Station Superintendent into tampering with the Muster Roll, retroactively marking the ap