Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6172
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, J, Mohan Pyare, AM
Kumari Neetu – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Original Application No.1517 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.M. Ali
For the Respondents: Anil Kumar
Disciplinary proceedings abate upon the death of a charged employee during the pendency of an appeal, and the employee is deemed to have died in service without any punishment.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Railway Board Circular dated 19.06.2000 - Disciplinary proceedings - Death of charged employee during pendency of appeal - Abatement of proceedings - The departmental appeal and the disciplinary proceeding are part of the same proceeding - If the charged employee dies during pendency of appeal, the entire proceeding including the punishment or appeal order will meet a legal death and it would be deemed that neither any disciplinary proceeding was pending nor any punishment was awarded against the deceased employee - The Railway Board Circular dated 19.06.2000 clarifies that disciplinary proceedings should be closed immediately on the death of the charged railway servant. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
(B) Limitation - Delay and laches - Preliminary objection - Repeated representations and pendency of appeal - Delay stands sufficiently explained if the employee had been continuously making representations and the appeal remained undecided for a long period - Continued inaction of the respondents in deciding the appeal for years cannot be a ground to dismiss the application on limitation. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The father of the applicant, Late Ramesh Chand Kangali, was a Group 'D' employee in the Indian Railways. He was issued a charge-sheet for unauthorized absence, and after inquiry, was removed from service on 29.05.1997. An appeal was filed on 11.07.1997, which remained undecided for many years. The employee died on 06.08.2010 during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant, his daughter, pursued the matter, and the appellate authority finally decided the appeal on 16.06.2017, upholding the removal. The applicant challenged both orders before the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the disciplinary proceedings abated upon the death of the charged employee during the pendency of the departmental appeal, and whether the Original Application was barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the delay was sufficiently explained as the employee had been making representations and the appeal remained undecided. It further found that the disciplinary proceedings abated upon the death of the employee during the pendency of the appeal, relying on a previous judgment and the Railway Board Circular dated 19.06.2000. Consequently, it was deemed that no punishment was ever awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that if a charged employee dies during the pendency of a departmental appeal, the entire disciplinary proceedings abate, and it is deemed that no punishment was imposed. The departmental appeal is a continuation of the disciplinary proceeding. The Railway Board Circular mandates closure of proceedings upon the death of the charged official. Result : Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. opening of the case and relief sought (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts leading to the application (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents' defense on delay and merits (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments of both parties (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. preliminary objection on limitation rejected (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. abatement of proceedings upon death (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. final order and closure (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Mr. S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:
(i) To quash the impugned order dated 29-05-1997 removal from service, and impugned appellate order dated 16-06-2017 with all consequential benefits.
(ii) To appoint the applicant in the place of deceased employee and to provide the death cum retrial benefit along with 18% interest from due date to actual payment as per the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of Railway Board Circular dated 19-06-2000.
(iii) To pass any such and further order as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the cases (iv) Award The cost of the compensation in favour of the family of the deceased employee for suffering long time due to illegal and harsh action of respondents.
3. The brief facts as stated in the Original Application is that the father of the applicant namely, Late Ramesh Chand Kangali, was employed as a Group ‘D’ employee (Khalasi No. 864) in the Indian Railways w.e.f. 1981. During the course of his service, he fell seriously ill and remained under medical treatment from 19.07.1995 to 13.03.1996, initially under a private doctor and thereafter at Railway Hospital, Jhansi. Due to his prolonged illness, he could not attend his duties; however, he had duly informed the department from time to time.
3.1 Subsequently, a major penalty charge-sheet dated 22.01.1996 was issued against him for unauthorized absence. The inquiry concluded the inquiry and submitted his Report to the Disciplinary Authority, wherein it was observed that the employee was unauthorizedly absent only for a period of 13 days, i.e., from 06.07.1995 to 18.07.1995, while the remaining period of absence was under private sick w.e.f. 19.07.1995 to 13.03.1996 and information in this regard was communicated to the Department through UPC. Despite this, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.05.1997 imposed the penalty of removal from service.
3.2 Aggrieved by the same, the father of the applicant filed an departmental appeal on 11.07.1997 before the Appellate Authority, but the same was not decided for a considerable period. The father of the applicant made representation on 13.05.1998 to DME (D), Jhansi for cancellation of punishment, but no heed was paid. The applicant also made several representations dated 15.09.2005, 10.02.2009, and 08.04.2010 seeking grant of pensionary benefits or compassionate allowance, but no action was taken by the respondents. However, during the pendency of such representations/appeal, the father of the applicant expired on 06.08.2010 after prolonged illness.
3.3 After the death of the employee, the applicant, being his daughter, pursued the matter and sought information under the Right to Information Act in the year 2012, whereupon it was revealed that the departmental appeal was still pending. The applicant thereafter filed an Original Application No.887/2013 seeking retiral benefits and also to decide the pending representation dated 30.07.2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.03.2017, with a direction upon the applicant to file a substitution application and further directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal by passing a reasoned order.
3.4 In compliance thereof, the applicant filed a substitution application on 11.04.2017, which was allowed by the Appella
