O R D E R

Per : Hon’ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

1. Being aggrieved by the order No.E 890/1/ Part-4 dated 17.03.2017 issued by the Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Loco Carriage and Wagon Dahod (Annexure-A/2) whereby training of the applicant was cancelled, whereby he has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-

“8.1 Lord ships be pleased to admit this petition. And be pleased to issue order quash and setting aside Order No.E/890/1/Part 04 Dated 17.03.2017 Passed by Chief Works Dahod. (A/1) and Manager, Order No. E/890/1/Part 04, Dated 30.07.2016 Passed by Asstt. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Loco Carriage and Wagon, Dahod. (A/2)

8.2 And be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefit.

8.3 The Order for be call for the record.

8.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.

8.5 Cost of suit be awarded.”

2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:-

2.1 The applicant was appointed on 07.11.2012 on compassionate ground for the post of Technical Grade-III by Chief Works Manager vide Order No.EL/890/1 Part-3 dated 07.11.2012 (Annexure-A/3). He further contended that the respondent issued Charge Sheet bearing Memo No.E 308/MR/67702/DAR dated 10.09.2014 for the unauthorized absent from 24.03.2014 to 12.08.2014 for a total of 142 days. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and after completion of the inquiry, they submitted inquiry report vide their Office Memo No.308/MR/DAR dated 08.07.2016. The inquiry report was also given to the applicant and in response to the Inquiry report, the applicant also submitted representation on 20.05.2016. Subsequently, respondent further issued a show cause notice bearing No.E 380/MR/DAR dated 08.07.2016 to the applicant herein asking him to submit his representation against the proposed action of cancellation of the training of the applicant ?

2.2 In response to the show cause notice, the applicant submitted his representation on 20.07.2016 wherein he had mentioned that the period of leave was already sanctioned by the competent authority. Considering the representation filed by the applicant, respondent further issued order No.E 890/1/Part 04 dated 30.07.2016 without considering the facts mentioned in the representation in response to the show cause.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the applicant filed representation dated 10.08.2016 for continue him in training (Annexure-A/9). Subsequently mother of the applicant made a representation on 04.03.2017 to the Chief Works Manager to consider the case of her son and continue to him for training (Annexure-A/10). Considering the case of her son and allowed him to complete training. Thereafter as a normal practice the applicant also filed an appeal on 06.03.2017 against penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for cancellation of the training which was decided by the respondent vide their order No.E 890/1 Part-4 dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure-A/1) and rejected the appeal of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant again approached the Chief Works Manager through appeal dated 20.05.2017 which was replied by the respondent vide their order No.E 890/1 Part-4 dated 07.06.2017 and submitted that the respondent had already given the reply vide order dated 17.03.2017.

3. The counsel for the applicant further contended on the ground as stated hereunder:-

3.1 That the respondent calculated wrong unauthorized absence in the show cause notice which also included the period whereof the leave was sanctioned to the applicant. He further challenged the competency of the order issuing authority and further argued that he was appointed by the Chief Works Manager i.e., CWM, Dahod whereas penalty order was issued by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, who is the lower authority, as such, the penalty order is required to be quashed and set aside.

3.2 He further extended his positio