Nasim vs The Union Of India Through The General Manager And Ors

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 738

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Nasim – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India Through The General Manager And Ors – Respondent
WPC 7258 / 2016

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Power of judicial review - Central Administrative Tribunal - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 - High Court's power to review Tribunal's decisions is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional errors, not to re-appreciate evidence.

(B) Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 - Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) - Misconduct - Charges of giving false attendance, confining a co-worker, and misbehaving with a superior officer - Removal from service - Punishment upheld.

(C) Fundamental Rules - Rule 53(2) - Subsistence allowance - Payment is contingent upon the suspended employee remaining at the designated headquarters - An employee who leaves headquarters without permission cannot claim prejudice from non-payment - Principle that a wrongdoer cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Gangman under the East Central Railway, was removed from service on 24.03.1995 after a disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of charges including giving false attendance, confining a co-worker, and misbehaving with a superior officer (the AEN). The petitioner challenged the removal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, which dismissed his application (O.A. No. 53 of 2012) on 15.02.2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the Tribunal had correctly considered the petitioner's main ground of prejudice due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's headquarters were fixed at Latehar, the place of inquiry, but he left headquarters without permission, thereby violating the rules for payment of subsistence allowance. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim prejudice from his own conduct, applying the principle that a wrongdoer cannot take advantage of his own wrong. The Court further found no violation of natural justice because the petitioner was represented by a legal representative, examined defense witnesses, and was supplied with the inquiry report. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's challenge to his removal from service, particularly with regard to (i) the claim of prejudice due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, and (ii) the alleged violations of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's power of judicial review over a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional errors. The Tribunal's decision on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings, including the effect of non-payment of subsistence allowance on an employee who left headquarters without permission, is not subject to re-appreciation by the High Court.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments of the petitioner and respondents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. analysis of the court regarding judicial review and natural justice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
4. no error apparent; writ petition dismissed. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)

Order No.08/dated 19.01.2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1.The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013 passed in O.A. No. 53 of 2012 (R) by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, (Circuit Court at Ranchi) whereby and whereunder the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority have been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the original application.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, as has been incorporated from the pleading of the original application reads as under:

The petitioner was working as D.C./Gangman under P.W.I., Tori under E.C. Railway, Dhanbad Division.

On 08.07.1992, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation of mis-conduct.

On 13.08.1992 by registered post and on 30.12.1992 by ordinary post, the petitioner submitted non engagement certificates which is a pre-condition for receiving subsistence allowance.

On 08.09.1992, the petitioner was served with a major penalty memorandum on allegations of giving false attendance and confining a gangmate named Sharfuddin and mis-behaving with Shri R.P. Saha, AEN/Latehar.

On 03.09.1993 and 15.12.1993, the petitioner represented against non-payment of subsistence allowance to him with effect from 08.07.1992.

On 27.12.1993, the petitioner sent a registered letter addressed to Inquiry Officer that as no subsistence allowance was being paid to him, he is not in a position to attend the disciplinary proceedings and inquiry at Latehar. According to the petitioner, his defence helper also brought this fact to the notice of the Inquiry Officer about non-payment of subsistence allowance but no order was passed, and the inquiry was conducted ex parte.

It is the case of the petitioner that in-spite of repeated request for payment of subsistence allowance before the Disciplinary authority and the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance and instead of payment an ex-parte departmental proceeding were concluded against the petitioner.

On 23.09.1994, the petitioner received copy of the inquiry report, which revealed that the proceedings were conducted ex-parte behind his back. On 05.10.1994, the petitioner made a representation to the Respondent No.3 drawing his attention to procedural lapses and biased approach of the Inquiry Officer including denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case.

Finally, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24.03.1995 removed the petitioner from service.

Thereafter, the petitioner made appeal against the removal order dated 24.03.1995. Since the appeal was not disposed of by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed O.A.No.858 of 2003, which was disposed of on 18.11.2003 with a direction to the DRM, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Since, in spite of the said order of the Tribunal, no order was passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a contempt petition and while disposing the contempt petition, by an order dated 16.03.2005 in CCPA 84 of 2004 it could be known that the DRM is not the appellate authority to whom the Tribunal had directed rather the Sr. DEN, Dhanbad is the appellate authority whom the appeal should have been submitted and for technical reason, the appeal has not been attended.

The Tribunal directed a copy of the order to be addressed to the appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 738

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDNasim – AppellantVersusThe Union Of India Through The General Manager And Ors – RespondentWPC 7258 / 2016

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Nasim – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India Through The General Manager And Ors – Respondent
WPC 7258 / 2016