Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13901
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J, Mallika Arya, A
Dr. Ajay Dogra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 200/1132 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Akash Choudhury
For the Respondents: Shri S.K. Patel
OA dismissed as time-barred under S.21 AAT; unchallenged late appeal rejection attains finality.
Headnote:Under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (R.9, R.3(1)(ii), R.3(1)(iii)) and Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1968, applicant, a Senior Divisional Medical Officer, applied for Extraordinary Leave (EOL) in 2004 but overstayed without sanction, leading to unauthorized absence from 25.07.2004 to 23.10.2006. Disciplinary proceedings under major penalty charge sheet resulted in withholding increments for three months; subsequent order treated absence as 'dies non'. Tribunal found orders time-barred under S.21 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with unchallenged appellate rejection. Issues framed as whether impugned orders on penalty and 'dies non' were lawful and appeal delay condonable. Court held Disciplinary Authority finalized proceedings with penalty imposition; no piecemeal quasi-judicial action permissible; late appeal rejected without merit. Original Application dismissed as time-barred, lacking merit; no interference warranted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized absence post-unsanctioned eol triggers disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. penalty imposed after ex-parte inquiry; absence treated as dies non. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. late appeal rejected as time-barred beyond 45 days. (Para 7) |
| 4. oa dismissed due to limitation under s.21 aat. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM
The applicant was working on the post of Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Bhopal. He was served with the major penalty charge sheet SF–5 under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. A copy of the charge sheet No. WCR/PHQ/CON/GAz/DR/AD dated 13.04.2006 is enclosed as Annexure A-3. After conclusion of the inquiry, Respondent No. 2 imposed a penalty of withholding of increments for a period of 03 months without cumulative effect vide order dated 25.03.2008 (Annexure A-1). Suddenly after a span of 11-12 months, the Chief Personnel Officer, HQs, West Central Railways, Jabalpur issued an order dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure A-2), which is also impugned in the OA. Therefore, after finalization of the disciplinary proceedings the respondents are treating the interim period of absence from duty i.e. from 25.07.2005 to 31.10.2006 as ‘dies-non’ and the period w.e.f. 24.10.2006 to 08.11.2006 has been treated as the period ‘waiting for passing order’. There is no provision for treating the PIYUSH period in question as ‘dies-non’. The Disciplinary Authority cannot CHAND exercise the quasi judicial powers for imposing punishment under the statutory provisions of Rule 6 prescribing a penalty in a piecemeal manner. The departmental proceedings came to an end with the imposition of punishment. Hence any subsequent order passed is deemed to be treated as null and void. The appeal of the applicant dated 02.07.2015 was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure A-4). The applicant was asked by the General Manager to clarify as to why he filed an appeal after a lapse of 7 years and 3 months, wherein he should have filed the appeal within 15 days. The explanation given by the applicant was rejected and communicated to the applicant vide order dated 25.04.2017. A copy of the order dated 05.04.2017 communicated vide letter dated 25.04.2017 is enclosed as Annexure A-5.
2. The applicant while working as Sr. DMO, Bhopal submitted an application for sanction of Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) on 18.06.2004. The EOL was to commence from 01.07.2004 for a period of one year. Since the EOL was not sanctioned till 16.07.2004, the applicant obtained 5 days APL and proceeded on leave in anticipation of the sanction of EOL on 17.07.2004. The applicant during this period submitted many applications requesting for early sanction of EOL. On 21.06.2005 he submitted another application for extension of EOL for another year in continuation of the EOL already requested vide letter dated 01.07.2005. As the applicant had served the Railways for more than 11 years, therefore he was entitled for EOL for a period of three years as per REC Vol. 1. After expiry of the EOL period as applied by the applicant, he reported for duty on 24.10.2006. During the interim period the applicant did not receive any communication from the Railway administration regarding sanction of EOL. Hence the applicant assumed that there was a deemed acceptance of his request for EOL. Thereafter the applicant was shocked to receive a letter from the office of Respondent No. 3 directing him to report for duty and the finding of an ex parte inquiry conducted by the Sr. DMO, Bhopal Dr. R.K. Shrivastava on an alleged charge sheet issued to him while he was on deemed EOL. A copy of the inquiry report and the charge sheet are marked as Annexure A-6. The charges levelled in the charge sheet against the applicant were ‘failure of devotion to duty’ and also ‘conduct unbecoming of a Railway servant’ which is in violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of Railways Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
3. The applicant
