T N SUKUMARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant who retired from the Southern Railway, Palghat Division on 31.8.95 has filed this application for the following reliefs:--

(2.) The respondents in the reply statement contend, that the enquiry has been held in conformity with the rules and instructions and that the Presidential order Annexure A23 was issued as provided for the Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Annexure A24 letter issued in implementation of the Annexure A23 order is also perfectly valid and justified, contend the respondents.

(3.) THE legal battle between the applicant and the Railway Administration had a long and chequered career. However the dropping of the memorandum of charges issued by the incompetent authority and the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the memorandum of charges dated 14.8.95 cannot be faulted as it was finding that the 6th respondent did not have the jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings that the 4th respondent has issued Annexure A17 charge-sheet. Since the applicant retired on superannuation on 31.8.95, the order Annexure A23 was issued purportedly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. THE learned Counsel of the applicant Mr. Vadakara V.N.N. Menon mainly stressed only one point, namely that the Annexure A23 order being cryptic and non-speaking and being not issued strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, the order is liable to be set aside and the Annexure A24 order also is required to be set aside. He argued that if the Presidential order Annexure A23 is set aside as no guilt of he applicant has been established in any proceedings, the applicant is entitled to have the period of suspension treated as service for all purposes as also for the relief of promotion with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted.