DHADDHA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners - Union of India and four others, against the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal allowed Original Application (OA) setting aside the orders dated 5.9.2011 and 19.7.2013 passed by the petitioners. Respondent applicant Doongar Singh Rawat was ordered to be reinstated in service by the petitioners giving notional benefits and further direction for grant of actual consequential benefits only from the date of his reinstatement in service. Being aggrieved with the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 Union of India issued notification to fill up certain posts from Ex- Service Men. The respondent applicant Doongar Singh Rawat, being Ex-Service Man, applied for the post of Khallasi. The petitioners selected the respondent applicant Doongar Singh Rawat to appoint him to the post of Khallasi vide order dated 28.4.2011 and thus he joined the said post on the next day, i.e. on 29.4.2011. He was performing his duties without any shortcoming. But, petitioner No.5 - Assistant Mechanical Engineer vide letter dated 5.9.2011 without competency, terminated the services of the respondent applicant without affording / extending any chance of hearing on the ground that he had concealed the fact regarding court case on affidavit. The respondent No.5, neither extended any chance of hearing nor adopted procedure under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and straightaway passed the termination order. The respondent No.5 was not the appointing authority. The respondent immediately made a representation on 13.9.2011 before the petitioner No.3, DRM, North Western Railway, Ajmer Division, Ajmer but it was rejected. The respondent applicant further appealed before the petitioner No.2 on 22.3.2012 and apprised with the correct position with supporting documents stating that his termination was against the facts. The departmental appeal was not entertained. The respondent applicant approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal disposed of the appeal with direction to the petitioners for deciding the appeal within two months. The petitioner No.4 had rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.7.2013.
(3.) In reply, it was averred that non-disclosure / concealment in question was clearly admitted by the respondent applicant in view of the clear warning given at the beginning of the Attestation Form itself that furnishing false information/s in the form, would invite termination of service. The respondent applicant himself submitted an affidavit reiterating that in case any such case was later found to be pending in a court or educational institution, the Railway Administration would have the right to remove him without prior notice immediately from service.;