Navneet Kumar, Member (J) - (1.) THE present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s. 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs: - (i) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the order dated 30.4.2008 and 31.4.7/8.2008 which are contained as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the Original Application. (ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the opposite parties to reinstate the applicant in service and to give all consequential benefits including seniority and salary. (iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the order dated 12/25.2.2009 which is contained as Annexure No. 7 to the Original Application. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi in 1982. He was served with a charge sheet in 2007 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that the applicant has misused the Railway Pass which was taken by him in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi and four children whereas the applicants wife name is Smt. Revti Misra and daughter name is Km. Aarti, who is already married. Against the said charge sheet, the applicant preferred the reply/representation and after that the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer conducted the detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the applicant stands proved. The copy of the enquiry report was duly served upon the applicant and the applicant also submitted the reply to the same and after considering the reply and the enquiry officers report, Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal vide order dated 30.4.2008. The applicant submitted the appeal and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the applicant.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has pointed out that the enquiry officer has not considered the reply of the applicant submitted against the charge sheet and has also not considered the statement of Shanti Devi @ Revti as well as her daughter. Apart from this, the applicant has categorically pointed out in his reply submitted to the charge sheet that Shanti Devi and Revti Devi both are one lady and wife of the applicant and they are having five children, out of which, three are daughters and two are sons. In the O.A., the learned Counsel for the applicant has categorically pointed out that this aspect was not considered by the enquiry officer and he has submitted his report, as such it requires interference and is liable to be struck down. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply it is pointed out by the respondents that applicant has failed to indicate any illegality committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order and affidavit filed by the applicant before the competent Court at Behraich clearly shows that the applicant is having only one daughter. Not only this, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Appellate Authority has also dealt with the appeal of the applicant and has also considered all the relevant material available in the records and passed the order confirming the punishment awarded to the applicant. The respondents through their reply has also indicated that the enquiry officer has taken note of the evidence adduced by the parties and stand taken by them and has gone into the details. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot said to be wrong on any grounds. The respondents have also submitted the original records for perusal of the Tribunal. They filed the reply to the amended portion to the O.A. and through reply it is once again reiterated that the authorities have considered each and every aspects of the matter before passing of the impugned order, as such it does not require any interference by this Tribunal. Not only this, it is also pointed out by the respondents that the applicant has also filed a petition u/s. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Court at Behraich in 2005 and as per para 5 of the said petition, it is mentioned by the applicant that he is having a daughter whose name is Aarti. In the said application, it is not mentioned by him that he is having five children.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant filed rejoinder and through rejoinder reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and the averments made in counter are denied. Through rejoinder reply, it is once again pointed out by the applicant that he has given the name of his wife as Shanti Devi and has also given the name of all five children, as such there is no concealment before the department. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the averments made in the reply filed against the charge sheet or the reply filed against the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority failed to take note of the same and passed the orders in a very mechanical manner.;