Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai Original Application No. 442/2014 Order reserved on: 22.08.2025 Order pronounced on: 12.11.2025 Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

MOHAMMED HUSAIN BOHRA aka M.H. Bohra, Age-48 years, date of birth:05.06.1965, son of M.A. BOHRA, compulsory retired as: Junior Accounts Assistant (JAA) under Sr. D.F.M.(Divisional Finance Manager) DRM's Office, Mumbai Division, Western Railway, Mumbai 400008, and residing at: 36, Atmaram Building, 1st Floor, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Girgaon, Mumbai 400 004.

….Applicant (By Adv: Shri R. G. Walia)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through: General Manager, Western Railway, Headquarters Office, Churchgate, Mumbai

400020.

2. Divisional Railway Manager(DRM) Mumbai Division, Western Railway, Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400008.

3. Sr. D.F.M. (Divisional Finance Manager) DRM's Office, Mumbai Division, Western Railway, Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400008.

4. FA & CAO. (Finance Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer)

Headquarters' Office, Churchgate, Station Building, Mumbai Division, Western Railway, Mumbai 4000020.

.... Respondents VERMA VIJAY KUMAR VERMA (By Adv: Dr. V.S. Masurkar)

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The applicant before this Tribunal is challenging the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 13.07.2012 by which the applicant was removed from service, the Appellate order dated 31.10.2013, by which the Appellate Authority ordered compulsory retirement instead of removal from service and the Revisionary Authority’s order dated 13.05.2014 by which the revision of the applicant was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant point of time, applicant was working on the post of Jr. Accounts Assistant in the office of Senior D.F.M./B.C.T., Western Railway in the year 2010 and was subjected to Charge sheet dated 03.06.2010 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 in which it was alleged that he remained absent unauthorizedly from 07.04.2010 till date i.e. 03.06.2010 (i.e. the date of issuance of charge sheet) and thereby neglected his duties and office work and contravened Rule 3(i), (ii), (iii) of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. It is stated that charge-sheet was signed by A.D.F.M.-P.C.-B.C.T. as Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that A.D.F.M. is a Group-'B' officer and is not competent to issue a charge sheet for major penalty to an employee with great pay of Rs. 5200-20200 plus grade pay 2800/-. It is further stated that thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry. The Applicant has submitted his written statement i.e. dated 20.08.2010 wherein he denied the charges and pointed out that he was not absent but he was sick during the said period and was undergoing psychiatric treatment directly and in railway hospital and thereafter on resumption submitted the certificate to that effect issued by Senior DMO, Bandra, Mumbai who is a Railway Doctor. Further letter dated 20.12.2010 was submitted to Sr.F.M. Bombay Division mentioning that the applicant was sick and confined to the bed and was admitted as indoor patient in J.R. Hospital Bombay Central, Bombay. It is requested that his absence may be treated as sick leave.

3. It is further stated that in the Inquiry Officer 's report dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-A/6) in which it was shown that charges were not proved. On being shown this report, the Inquiry Officer asked the applicant to give in writing that he was satisfied. After reading the Inquiry Officer 's report, the applicant was persuaded to give in writing that he was satisfied since he was not found guilty.

4. It is further submitted that at the initial stage was conducted and the applicant was present in the said inquiry. Thereafter, the I.O. submitted a report dated 10.03.2011 to the effect that the applicant was guilty and charges are proved. However, subsequently it seems that the further enquiry was conducted ex-partie about which the applican