(Reserved on 14.11.2025)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH (Circuit Sitting Bilaspur)

Original Application No. 574 of 2019 Jabalpur, this the 05th day of December, 2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Prahalad Ram, S/o Late Rambahoran, Aged about 48 years, BSP Ex. Box Boy under CSM/SECR/Bijuri, Present Address- Village – Nagoi, Post – Baima, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001. -Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri Sandeep Sharma V e r s u s

1. Union of India though General Manager, SECR/GM Office, Railway Settlement, Bilaspur (CG) - 495004.

2. Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, SECR, DRM Office, Railway Settlement, Bilaspur (CG) - 495004.

3. Sr. Divisional Operation Manager, SECR/Sr. DOM Office, Railway Settlement, Bilaspur (CG) - 495004. -Respondents Advocate for the respondents : Shri Palash Tiwari O R D E R Delivered by Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial) :- In the present original application, the applicant is aggrieved by his removal from service. The applicant stated that after prolonged sickness w.e.f. 06.11.2015 to 20.11.2016, when he attended the office to resume his duties, he came to know that his services have been removed vide order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure A-3). Thereafter, the applicant preferred appeal on 22.02.2017 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure A-5). Being aggrieved the applicant preferred revision petition on 29.08.2018 (Annexure A-6) which was also rejected by the Revising Authority vide order dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure A-1). Hence, the applicant has filed the instant original application.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire action of the respondents is ex-parte and no opportunity was given to the applicant by the disciplinary authority before passing the order of removal, therefore, the action of the respondents is in contravention to provisions of Railway Servants (D&A) Rule 1968 as well as in violation to provisions of rule 9 and 10 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rule 1968. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the appellate authority sat over the appeal dated 22.07.2017 and only after the applicant filed a reminder dated 10.07.2018, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 25.07.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the appeal ought to have been most promptly disposed of on its merit invariably within a month in terms of Rly Board's letter No E(D&A) 71 RG 6-22, dated the 11.06.1971 and E(D&A) N84 RG 6-31, dated the 03.02.1985. Further, the action of the appellate authority is also violative of Rule 24 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968 as no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the applicant by him. Not only this, the reviewing authority also did not consider the grounds of the revision petition and rejected the same in a very casual manner and thus prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

3. Per contra, based on the reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was habitual for unauthorized absentee. He remained unauthorized absent from duty from 03.08.15 to 10.06.16 onwards. By the above act, he failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in the manner of unbecoming of a Railway employee. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that earlier to this, from the year 2009 to 2016, he was remained unauthorized absent for which on several occasions, from 13.03.2014 to date of removal, the period of absence have been declared as dies non. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant produced unfit medical certificate issued by a private doctor. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that charge memorandum was received by the applicant, thereafter, despite several dates were fixed for inquiry proceedings, the applicant did not appear on any occasion, therefor