VIDHATA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants 1 and 2 the widow and son of late Shri Ramnayan Verma, ex-employee under the respondents have filed this application challenging the order dated 3.3.1992 by which Shri Ramnayan Verma was removed from service for some alleged misconduct without holding any inquiry and praying for a declaration that the removal from service was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; for a diction to the respondents to treat that late Ramnayan continued in service till the date of his death on 20.11.1992 and give to the first applicant on behalf of legal heirs of Ramnayan the arrears of pay and allowances from 3.3.1992 to 20.11.1992, the terminal benefits like gratuity, family pension, cash equivalent of earned leave etc., to consider the appointment of second applicant on compassionate grounds and not to evict the applicants from the Railway quarter. When the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel of the applicant states that the claim for compassionate appointment need not be considered in this application and permission be granted to the applicants to seek relief in that behalf in another proceedings. He also stated that the grievance regarding eviction from quarter also does not subsists now as permission as sought is granted.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. Late Ramnayan B. Verma was working as Steam Crane Driver under the second respondent. He was placed under suspension by order dated 11.2.1992 stating that disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him. Thereafter, without issuing any memorandum of charges and without holding any inquiry as required under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 the impugned order Annexure-A dated 3.3.1992 was issued by the second respondent removing Ramnayan from service in exercise of powers vested in it under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Ramnayan Verma submitted an appeal to third respondent stating that he had an unblemished service in the past 28 years, that he was not guilty of any misconduct that the impugned order removing him from service was issued without following principles of natural justice as there was no circumstance which warranted dispensation of inquiry contemplated under the service rules and praying that the order of removal be set aside. The appeal submitted by Ramnayan was not disposed off. Steps were taken for eviction of Ramnayan and his family from the quarter while so Ramnayan died on 20.11.1992. Ramnayan Verma was survived by a daughter aged 20 years and another son aged 18 years apart from the applicants. Since the appeal submitted by Ramnayan Verma was not disposed off and the removal of Ramnayan Verma from service was wholly illegal and unjustified. Thus, the applicants have filed this application for the reliefs as aforesaid.

(3.) THE original application was heard by a Division Bench and it was disposed off by order dated 17th November, 1997 referring the matter to the Honourable Chairman for constituting a Full Bench to consider the question whether heirs or legal representatives of a deceased delinquent official can file or can continue O.A. challenging the disciplinary order against a deceased delinquent official and to get consequential benefits. Accordingly, a Full Bench was constituted. THE Full Bench consisting of three members vide its order dated 30th August, 1998 came to the conclusion that the legal heirs of deceased employee could not maintain the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act challenging the order passed in a disciplinary proceedings against a deceased employee and seek consequential reliefs. THE application was then placed before Division Bench for disposal. In the light of the finding by the Full Bench, the application was dismissed as not maintainable by the Division Bench by order dated 24th June, 1998. THE applicant challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 4856/98. THE Hon'ble High Court noting that the ruling of the Full Bench in this case was reversed by a larger Bench of five members of the Tribunal in O.A. 501/94, Mrs. Chandrakala Pradhan v. Union of India and Ors. relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Srivastava v. Comptroller and Auditor General, 1996( 1) SCC 363 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the application is now before us for fresh disposal.