- (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby tribunal has upheld the order of removal from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Gangman on 4.4.1981 and thereafter in the year 1995 after passing the prescribed test, he was allowed higher scale of Rs.800-1150 and posted in Traffic Department as pp under Station Superintendent, Shyampura Station Kota. It is not disputed that the applicant was sanctioned leave for the period from 2.9.2000 to 5.9.2000. Thereafter the applicant did not report for duty. Accordingly, a major penalty chargesheet was issued vide memorandum dt. 17.11.2003 whereby charges against the petitioner was that while functioning on the post of PP under Station Superintendent, Shymapura, he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 6.9.2000 onwards. The charge was proposed to be proved on the basis of list of documents and list of witnesses mentioned in Annex. IV. Copy of the chargesheet was sent by registered AD on the last known address of the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry was held ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dt. 6.9.2004. The petitioner filed appeal and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. He further filed revision petition before the Revising/Authority and revision petition was rejected vide order dt. 5.7.2005.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Dr. Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal v. Union of India and ors. reported in 2014(5) SLR 667 (SC) wherein it has been held as under:- 6. The Appellant before us is presently 75 years of age. At the time when the Articles of Charge had been served upon him, he had already given the best part of his life to the service of the Respondent-Indian Railways. It has been contended before us that the three charges that have been sustained against the Appellant reflected only the tip of the iceberg; however, there is no material on record to substantiate this argument of Respondents. In the present case, the Appellant has served the Respondents for a period of twenty three years and removal from service for the two charges levelled against him shocks our judicial conscience. Part III of The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 contains the penalties that can be imposed against a Railway servant, both Minor Penalties as well as Major Penalties. We have already noted that it has been established that the Appellant had, as a matter of habit or on a wide scale, made illegal demands from Railway servants desirous of obtaining a Fit Certificate. However, since two of the three charges have been proved, we are of the considered opinion that the imposition of compulsory retirement i.e. Penalty 6(vii) would have better and more appropriately met the ends of justice. While this would have instilled sufficient degree of fear in the mind of the employees, it would also have set at naught several years of service which the Appellant had already given to the Respondent-Indian Railways. We think that deprivation of retiral benefits in addition to loss of service is entirely incommensurate with the charge of the Appellant having taken very small sums of money for the issuance of Fit Certificate to other Railway employees. 7. It is in these premises that the Appeals are accepted and the impugned Order dated 11.10.2010 is set aside. The Appellant shall be deemed to have compulsorily retired under Part-III Penalty 6(vii) of the aforementioned Railway Rules with effect from 22.1.1991. If he is entitled to retiral or other benefits on the said date, the Respondents shall make necessary payment within three months from today. This decision is restricted to the facts of the present case.;