Dismissal without inquiry upheld; acquittal doesn't negate disciplinary action; applications attempting to reopen dismissed.

ORDER

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

An identical relief prayed for in all these applications which is founded on similar facts and circumstances, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applicants have prayed for a direction to the respondents to re- open the issue relating to the dismissal order, dated 31.01.2004 passed against them and conduct enquiry in accordance with Rules and issue further and other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case by moulding the relief and award costs and thus render justice.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the applicants are as follows:

The applicants were dismissed from service by an order dated 31.01.2004, without a formal inquiry, under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The dismissal was based on charges of abuse and assault against the Deputy Mechanical Engineer at Trichy Railway Junction on the same date. It was noted that one of the applicants, L. Aruputharaj, had been subjected to prior disciplinary action by the said officer. Given the serious nature of the charges, including violence, indiscipline, and insubordination, the disciplinary authority concluded that it was not reasonably practicable to conduct a departmental inquiry, and accordingly, the applicants were dismissed. Subsequently, the applicants appealed the dismissal, but their appeals were rejected by the Appellate Authority. L. Aruputharaj filed OA No. 284 of 2017 and also submitted a representation to the DRM, Trichy Division, stating that the criminal case against the applicants (C.C. No. 287 of 2005) had ended in acquittal. He sought reinstatement on that basis. However, his request was rejected by order dated 03.03.2005, with the authority observing that the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt, and thus did not warrant reinstatement. Other applicants, excluding L. Aruputharaj, filed revision petitions before the General Manager, Southern Railway. The Revision Petition in OA No. 282 of 2017 was rejected. In OA Nos. 1047 to 1049 of 2016, however, the punishment of dismissal was modified to reduction in rank to Helper Grade-II for 10 years with cumulative effect, and the period between dismissal and reinstatement was treated as non-duty. Aggrieved by the Revisional Authority’s orders, the applicants filed OAs: Nos. 762 to 769 of 2005 and OA No. 283 of 2005 (by L. Aruputharaj). By a common order dated 05.06.2006, this Tribunal held the orders of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities as illegal in respect of the applicants in OA Nos. 282 and 284 of 2017, in light of their acquittal in the criminal case, and restored their original positions.

However, the Tribunal did not interfere with the modified penalties imposed on the other three applicants. The Railway Administration challenged the Tribunal’s order by filing Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court, which were dismissed by a common order dated 20.06.2007. The matter was then taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, by judgment dated 04.08.2009, set aside the High Court's order and upheld the dismissal orders. The Apex Court held that invoking Rule 14(ii) to dispense with a departmental inquiry was valid in the given circumstances and that acquittal in a criminal case, particularly one based on benefit of doubt, does not automatically invalidate disciplinary action. Following the Supreme Court judgment, the applicants submitted a representation to the Hon’ble President of India, which was not forwarded since the matter had attained finality. In the present Original Applications, the appl