R. Banumathi, C.J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions are filed for quashing the order dated 1.8.2012 and order dated 7.1.2013 passed in O.A. No. 236/2010(R) and O.A. No. 117/2011(R) respectively, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications directing reinstatement of the respondents with notional benefits of pay and seniority with effect from 16.10.2008 without any back wages.
(2.) THE respondents were appointed as Substitute Token Porter way back in 1988. In the year 1999, the respondents along with 23 others were issued with a major penalty chargesheet by the Divisional Operation Manager, vide chargesheet memo dated 12.5.1999, on the allegation that the respondents had secured employment on the basis of fake past casual service certificates. Although the alleged misconduct was individual, the chargesheet framed against all 25 were similar in nature. Major Penalty Proceedings were initiated, vide chargesheet dated 12.5.1999, and thus, proceeded in a general enquiry against all the Substitute Token Porters, which culminated into the punishment of removal from service. 22 aggrieved Substitute Token Porters filed writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 1376/2005, in which the removal orders were quashed and the Court ordered for reinstatement which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, all Substitute Token Porters excepting the respondents were reinstated with full back wages and regularized with continuity of service. So far as these respondents are concerned, by a similar order dated 31.7.2001, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service which was confirmed by the appellate authority, i.e. Senior D.O.M. Chakardharpur, (vide order dated 22.2.2002). Against the order dated 31.7.2001 and order dated 22.2.2002, the respondents filed two separate O.As., O.A. Nos. 648/2001 and 1038/2002 before the CAT, Cuttack. Both O.As. were disposed of by a common judgment dated 5.1.2004 remitting the case back to the disciplinary authority for starting de novo enquiry into the matter from the enquiry stage. The Tribunal further directed that the enquiry shall be limited to the examination of Sri S.C. Ghosh, P.W. 1/CONST/BNDM at the material time and to the production of the Live Casual Register BNDM. Against the order dated 5.1.2004, Railway filed writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 657/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 658/2005 before the High Court, Cuttack and the said writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 4.5.2005, wherein the High Court directed the Railways to start the fresh enquiry in continuation of the stage of recording of evidence giving liberty to the prosecution as well as to the defence to produce as many documents and witnesses as they want which are relevant in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer after obtaining his permission. A fresh enquiry was conducted from the stage of recording evidence and Sri S.C. Ghosh, whose forged signature past casual service certificates were issued, was examined as prosecution witness. He was also cross -examined by the respondents. The enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 28.11.2006. The Disciplinary Authority had issued orders exonerating the respondents from the charges brought against them. The Revising Authority, i.e. DRM, Chakardharpur, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Rule 25 of the Disciplinary Authority Rules, 1968 had initiated suo motu revision and a show cause notice dated 5.6.2008 was issued proposing to review the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and to impose the proposed penalty of removal from Railway service. The respondents had submitted representations dated 2.7.2008 and 29.7.2008 and considering the same, the Revising Authority issued the order dated 16.10.2008 removing the respondents from service.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 16.10.2008, the respondents filed O.A. No. 39/09 and O.A. No. 184/08 before the CAT, Ranchi, which were disposed of on 11.2.2009 and 11.8.2010 directing the respondents to prefer an appeal before the competent authority. Accordingly appeals were preferred by the respondents and the appeals were disposed of by Chief Operation Manager/GRC, vide order dated 12.6.09 and 15.4.2011, upholding the punishment of removal from service imposed by the Revising Authority, i.e. DRM, Chakardharpur. Being aggrieved by the order of the Revising Authority (dated 16.10.2008) and the appellate authority (dated 12.6.2009 and 15.4.2011), the respondent filed O.A. No. 164/2009 and O.A. No. 184/2008 before the CAT, Ranchi and the CAT disposed of the applications directing the Railways to consider the appeal in the light of the law laid down in the case of C. Ram Chandra. In compliance of the said order, the Chief Operation Manager, GRC passed a reasoned speaking order on 9.8.2010. Against the said order (dated 9.8.2010) reiterating the punishment of removal from service, the respondents filed O.A. No. 261/2010 and O.A. No. 117/2011 before the CAT, Ranchi and the Tribunal disposed of the said applications by two different orders directing the Railways to reinstate the respondents with notional benefits of pay with seniority with effect from 16.10.2008, which is under challenge in these writ petitions.;