K SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. SR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in the present application sought for a relief of setting aside the order of removal passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Hubli bearing No. H/P. 27/III/95/1297 dated 29.6.1999, which is confirmed by the appellate authority by order No. H/P. 86/III/99/KSM dated 12.1.2001 rejecting the appeal dated 23.8.1999 filed by the applicant by declaring the said orders as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 311(1), 311(2), 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service treating him as in continuous service from the date of removal with all consequential benefits, such as, arrears of salary, allowances, promotions from the date when his juniors were promoted with all monetary benefits.

(2.) The applicant while working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk was served with a Charge-memoalleging that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 1.6.1995 to 17.12.1995 without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority on production of sick certificate issued by the Railway medical authorities and thereby he contravened the Rules 3(i) and (ii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

(3.) THE applicant has urged several grounds in the present application in support of his contention that the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities are not supported by the evidence on record and the entire inquiry was conducted in violation of the rules and principles of natural justice. His main contention is that the Disciplinary Authority has acted without jurisdiction in remitting the matter back to the Inquiry Officer for holding a fresh inquiry, without recording any reasons for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the charge has not been proved and without supply of a copy of the fresh Charge-memo, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and the whole procedure adopted by the above said authorities is highly illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the relevant rules for conducting the departmental inquiries. In other words, the submission of the applicant is that the subsequent finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer stating that the charge has been proved against him is not based on any evidence and the subsequent report of the Inquiry Officer is vitiated by the illegalities committed in conducting the departmental inquiries and the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside on the ground that they are based on 'no evidence.'