LODHA, J. - (1.) THE order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 10th August, 2001 is impugned by the original applicant in this writ petition.
(2.) SMT. Poonam Arora-petitioner herein (for short, ``the delinquent'') was appointed on the post of Senior Clerk on 22nd May, 1989. She was posted in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota. She was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 18th March, 1994. She was served with a memorandum of charge for imposing minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, ``the Rules of 1968'') on 28th November, 1995. The allegation against her was that she had submitted a proposal for assessment of 18 posts of Chief Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (RP) of Establishment Branch to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager through the Assistant Personnel Officer-II taking into consideration anticipated vacancies- (a) due to retirement; and (b) due to promotion in higher grade; and taking the approval of the Additional Divisional Railway Manager without routing the file through the concerned authorities (Senior D. P. O.), while the applications dated 1st March, 1995 and 6th March, 1995 submitted by R. S. Gupta and D. M. Chawrekar respectively for seeking voluntary retirement were not submitted by her to the competent authority even up to the date of written test that was held on 16th April, 1995. It was alleged that taking into account the two vacancies was not correct and subsequently both the employees withdrew their applicants for voluntary retirement also. Due to wrong assessment of vacancies, the whole proceeding of selection had to be cancelled. It was, thus, alleged that the lapses showed her careless work and negligence of duties. The delinquent was called upon to submit her explanation/representation within ten days of receipt of the memorandum of charge-sheet. The delinquent submitted reply to the afore-stated charge- sheet. The competent authority held the delinquent guilty of carelessness and negligent in duty; charge was, thus, held proved and by the order dated 15th May, 1996, the disciplinary authority punished her of withholding of one set Privilege Ticket Order (P. T. O.) in the current year or whenever due to her. Pertinently, in his order dated 15th May, 1996, the disciplinary authority observed that the lapses occurred due to inexperience of the delinquent. On 25th September, 1998, the delinquent was served with second charge-sheet. This charge-sheet was for the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 i. e. for the major penalty. Article of charges in the second charge-sheet dated 25th September, 1998 reads thus: " Smt. Poonam Arora, Head Clerk in Kota Division, while working as such during the year 1995 committed gross misconduct in as much as that:- (i) Smt. Poonam Arora, Head Clerk in collusion with APO (II)/kota Sh. M. K. Chauhan and Shri D. M. Chavrekar, OS (Estt.) prepared misleading assessment of vacancies of draw herself an undue advantage during the selection of Chief Clerk, Grade Rs. 1600-2660 (RP), notification for which was issued on 20. 3. 95. (ii) Smt. Poonam Arora also intentionally increased anticipated vacancy by one more number of taking into account the vacancies that would have arisen due to voluntary retirement application dated 1. 3. 95 submitted by Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta even though the same was not put up to the accepting authority till date of assessment of vacancies for the selection, i. e. 15. 3. 95. By the above act Smt. Poonam Arora, failed to Exhibited absolute integrity, maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant thereby violating rule 3. 1 (i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966.
(3.) THE statement of imputations in support of the afore-noticed article of charges set out in the second charge-sheet read thus: " Smt. Poonam Arora, while working as Head Clerk/kota in the year 1995 committed gross misconduct in as much as that:- 1. 1 Smt. Poonam Arora, while working as HC/kota processed the file for selection for the post of Chief Clerk. 1. 2 Smt. Poonam Arora, Head Clerk prepared the assessment sheet as at (CP-1) of the selection file No. E/d/1025/25 Vol. I (L) wherein she had assessed the number of vacancies as 18 including 3 anticipated vacancies on account of retirements. Out of the 3 anticipated vacancies, 2 vacancies would have been caused if the applications of Sh. D. M. Chavrekar & Shri R. S. Gupta for voluntary retirement were to be accepted. 1. 3 File No. E/d/iii/1044 Exh. III contains two applications of Sh. D. M. Chavrekar, one dated 5. 3. 95 requesting for voluntary retirement and the another one dated 16. 3. 95 withdrawing the voluntary retirement. Both the applications do not bear any stamp of the receipt section. Both the applications were filed simultaneously at CP-148 & 149 of the file. THE application dated 16. 3. 95 has an endorsement by Shri M. K. Chauhan, APO (II) as follows:- " In view of this, the application dated 6. 3. 95 may please be filed. " From NP-21 of the file it is seen that both the applications, one seeking voluntary retirement as well as another withdrawing it, were put up to Sr. DPO on 10. 4. 95 by Smt. Poonam Arora simultaneously in one note for perusal only. 1. 4 As per extent instructions contained in Railway Board's letter No. E (WG)/i-80 PMI-21 dated 25. 1. 83 the anticipated vacancies due to Voluntary retirement should be considered only if the application is likely to be accepted. Since the applications were not even put up at the stage of assessment, the question of the same being likely to be accepted does not arise. Thus she violated the Board's instructions. (2) File No. E/d/iii/909 (Exh. IV) contains application of Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta dated 1. 3. 95 requesting for voluntary retirement which has been withdrawn by him vide his application on 28. 4. 95. THE application dated 1. 3. 95 was put up to the Sr. DPO on 17. 4. 95, i. e. after the assessment was approved and one day after the written test for the same selection was held. 2. 1 Since the above applications for voluntary retirement were not processed till 15. 3. 95, the inclusion of the resultant vacancies in the assessment was incorrect. Moreover from the fact that Shri D. M. Chavrekar withdraw his application on 16. 3. 95 one day after the assessment it is clearly evident that it was deliberately done to create a vacancy, as six candidates become eligible against two vacancies, and Smt. Poonam Arora was the second last in the list of eligible candidates. By the above acts Smt. Poonam Arora, attempted to draw the benefit for which she was not entitled. She thereby failed to exhibit absolute integrity, maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant violating rule 3. 1 (i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. " The delinquent made representation on 26th October, 1998 to the disciplinary authority for dropping the second charge-sheet on the ground that on the same allegations, she was earlier charge-sheeted and punished and, therefore, issuance of second charge-sheet was not justified. She submitted that the Rules of 1968 did not permit institution of successive disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations. Upon receipt of the representation from the petitioner, vide communication dated 7th December, 1999, the delinquent was called upon to furnish the copies of the documents referred therein. ;