- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways.
(2.) Applicant is aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2010 passed in O.A. No. 71 of 2009 read with M. A. No. 25 of 2009, by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit court at Ranchi). Learned Tribunal by the impugned order refused to interfere in the order of removal dated 19th July, 2005 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent no.-2, Senior Divisional Operational Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, and also the memorandum of charges dated 11th February, 2003 and the enquiry report dated 22nd September, 2003 impugned therein. The learned Tribunal did not find any basis to interfere in the appellate order dated 06th November, 2007, whereby the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings was upheld.
(3.) Applicant was engaged as a casual Hot Weather Staff in Transportation Department of Dhanbad Division as a substitute in the scale of Rs. 750-940/- (RP) against day to day casualties, and vacancies of Group 'D' staff. On the basis of a complaint by one Md. Abdul Islam Ansari that the applicant had submitted a fake and false transfer certificate of having studied in High School Bhowra, Dhanbad (Annexure-2) and obtained the appointment, departmental proceedings were initiated on the following charges: "That the said Sri MD. Islam Ansari while functioning as RR Bearer/GMO had submitted a fake and false school certificate (TC) dated 04.07.81 issued by High School Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in RLY. This is failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty on his part. Thereby he has contravened Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of RLY services conduct Rules 1966. It reveals from the letter no DSC/MISC/Complain dated 10.07.02 of Sr. DPO/DHN enquiry report dated 06.05.02 of Sri Anup Kumar Welfare Inspector DHN letter no. 23/02 dated 20.03.02 of Head Master High School Bhowra, Dhanbad and School Certificate (TC) dated 01.07.81 submitted by Sri Md. Islam Ansari that Sri Ansari had submitted a fake and false School Certificate dated 04.07.81 issued by Head Master High School, Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in Railway. This is failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty on his part thereby he has contravened Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of RLY Services Conduct Rules 1966." During departmental enquiry, the charges were found to be proved on the basis of enquiry report of Welfare Inspector, Railways examined as P.W. 1. The enquiry report was submitted on 11.02.2003 (Annexure-5). Petitioner got an opportunity to submit his reply to the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority found his explanation unsatisfactory and imposed the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 29.07.2005 (Annexure-7). Appellate authority by its order dated 06.11.2007 has confirmed the penalty (Annexure-10). Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the instant O.A. for quashing of the order of penalty and the appellate order as also the memorandum of charges and the enquiry report. Learned Tribunal Considered the submission of the parties and the pleading on record and held as under: "8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant emphasized the point that no opportunity was given to the applicant at the disciplinary enquiry stage to contradict the evidence and the documents produced by the presenting officer. But from the perusal of records as filed by both the applicant himself and by the respondents, it is amply clear that sufficient opportunity at all stages of enquiry have been accorded to the applicant. His appeal has also been considered in detail, and a reasoned and speaking order appears to have been passed. There is merit in the ground of limitation also. 9. In the cases of such disciplinary enquiries, it is not for this Tribunal to place itself in the shoes of the Disciplinary or the Appellate Authority and to either re-appreciate the evidence produced during the Disciplinary Inquiry afresh, or to decide about the quantum of punishment unless grave injustice or procedural irregularity is proved. 10. In this case we find that all due processes of law have been followed scrupulously in the Departmental Inquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Authority and the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority on those recommendations, and the orders of the Appellate Authority are all reasoned and speaking orders, which have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the applicant from stage to stage. Therefore, we find no procedural irregularity, illegality or infirmity with the orders passed, or any injustice having been caused to the applicant on procedural grounds. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant to set aside the impugned orders cannot be acceded to and is rejected." ;