AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CAN 1392 of 2018
In view of the good grounds shown, the marginal delay in applying for review is condoned and CAN 1392 of 2018 is disposed of.
RVW 14 of 2018 CAN 1394 of 2018
The Union seeks a review of the order dated October 25, 2017 passed on a petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that there may be error apparent on the face of the order.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants ended in such employee being reduced in rank. The concerned employee was also directed to refund the value of the goods stolen under his watch.
The order was challenged within the domestic forum and the appellate forum affirmed the punishment and directed the employee to make good the loss. Such appellate decision was carried before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated November 24, 2010, which was challenged in WPCT 237 of 2016, the tribunal quashed the penalty order and the order for refund on the ground that the punishment meted out to the employee was disproportionate to the act of the employee for which he faced disciplinary proceedings. This Court found in favour of the employer and held that once the employee was found to be guilty of misconduct, the direction for the recovery of the goods or the loss which was suffered by the employer should follow. However, it was also noticed that the concerned employee suffered from serious ailments at the relevant juncture and the Court perceived that a lenient view of the matter ought to be taken. Indeed, by the time, the writ petition was taken up, the concerned employee had died and was substituted by his widow and son.
The quantum of compensation, in terms of the order of punishment was to the tune of Rs.5.20 lakh. However, this Court found a letter dated January 10, 2004 addressed by the concerned employee wherein the concerned employee offered the employer that the value of the goods found short to the extent of Rs.1,44,736.80/-may be deducted from the dues of the employee. In view of such admission of the employee, the Court found that such amount had to be deducted from the retiral benefits of the employee and the balance paid to the employee or his heirs entitled thereto.
It may have been error of judgment on the part of this Court to have required a reduced sum to be deducted from the retiral benefits of the employee instead of the amount of Rs.5.20 lakh or even the interest that could be perceived to be due. But, an error of judgment is incapable of correction in a petition in the nature of the review as the present case. An error of judgment may, of course, be carried to the superior forum for its correction in an appeal or the like.
Considering the circumstances in which the order was passed and the basis on which this Court arrived at the figure of Rs.1,44,736.80/- in the order dated October 25, 2017, which is the subject of the present review, there does not appear to be any error apparent in such order or any arithmetical or like error which is capable of being corrected at this level.
It must also be pointed out that the order dated October 25, 2017 does not reflect the grounds now sought to be urged on behalf of the Union to have been canvassed before this Court.
RVW 14 of 2018 together with CAN 1394 of 2018 are dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
It is also recorded that sum of Rs.1,35,130/- has been deposited by the Union before the Registrar General. It will be open to the heirs of the concerned employee to obtain the payment from the Registrar General any time after January 31, 2019 in the event there is no order of any appropriate forum impeding such payment.
C.P.A.N. 568 of 2018 in W.P.C.T. 237 of 2016 The additional ground urged by the heirs of the deceased employee to the effect that the railways have denied the widow the medical facilities that she is otherwise entitled to can be carried by way of appropriate proceedings by the heirs of the employee since such aspect was not specifically provided for in the order dated October 25, 2017. Similarly, the further claim on account of retiral dues may be pursued by the heirs in accordance with law.
C.P.A.N. 568 of 2018 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
The original challan evidencing deposit of the money with the Registrar General has been made over to Advocate for the heirs of the employee. A photocopy of such challan should be retained with the present records.