T.L. Verma, Member (J). - (1.) The O.A. Nos 29 of 1988, 30 of 1988 and 31 of 1988 are being disposed of by this Tribunal by a common order as they Involve the common question of law and facts.
(2.) The applicants, in all the three oases, were appointed as substitute Khalasl, in July, 1982, They claimed to have acquired temporary statue on completion of 120 days continuous service and thereby became entitled to rights and privileges admissible to a temporary Railway Employee. They also claim to have become eligible for being screened for regular appointment on Group 'D' Post They are stated to have been considered and found suitable for regular absorption on Group 'D' Post. The result of the screening, It is alleged, was not published and instead they were put under suspension by order dated 17/19-9-1983 They were served with separate charge-sheet under Rule 9 of the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for major penalty vide Annexure-1.
(3.) Allegation against them was that they obtained appointment ate substitute Khalasis by submitting false working certificate. They submitted their written statements of defence on different dates. Inquiry Officers were appointed In the three disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the applicant. The inquiry Officer did not find the charges framed against the applicants as proved. The disciplinary authority, did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and look the view that. "It was only a technical error that genuineness of the applications was not verified at the spot before charging the employees". He, therefore, gave the benefit to the charged employees end took a lenient view and awarded punishment of W.I.T. for three years. The suspension of the applicants, thereafter, was revoked.;