AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J) This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“a)Call for the complete records and all the Annexure's I have produced and marked in this application from administration side and the departmental proceedings against me.
b)Quash and set aside the impugned Penalty Advice No.B/P/227/KKR/09/2017 Dated: 30-07-2018 and Termination Order No.1660/12/2018/VI/PG Dated: 24-12-2018 of Annexure No.13 and Annexure No.14 issued by Respondent No. 1
c)Direct the respondents to restore my original pay/seniority and grant of all consequential benefits like arrears and allowances with effect from 25-04-2018 as per my seniority.
d)Direct the respondents to take signed statements of each Railway officials from involved in my DAR case and Central Administrative Tribunalharassment on me from November-2014 as names mentioned in this application mainly from the APO/SBC & DA who issued wrong SF-5 Charge Memorandum dated: 04- 09-2017 and DPO/SBC & DA who issued impugned Penalty Advice and Termination Order as stated above in the application to render correct justice.
e)Direct the respondents to release Compensation of Rs. 52/-Crore (Fifty Two Crore Rupees) with an interest of 9% annum after Tax Deduction for what I have lost everything in life in this 12 long years, where I have lost everything like job, family, friends, relations, marital life, no children, no privacy, torture, humiliation, harassment, mental agony mainly my health spoiling and murder attempts to death I have faced, tolerated and survived throughout all these 12 long years only due to the administration failure and harassment.
f)Direct the respondents to release Compensation of Rs.09/-Crore (Nine Crore Rupees) with an interest of 9% per annum after Tax Deduction for what I have spent on Hon'ble Courts like for bail, advocate fees, travelling and other expenses from 08-02-2016 to till date.
g)Direct the respondents for my immediate transfer to any other Railway Zone or to any other department other than Personnel Branch when I place my request for transfer to any other Railway Zone or to any Department change in same Railway Zone.
h)Pass such other order(s) that If the respondents or administration failed or don't agree to arrange Compensation with correct justice to me and my life as I stated and desired in this application in the column of "Relief Sought" through this Hon'ble Tribunal then I shall be permitted to take any serious legal action without seeking any kind of permission or grant for cognizance from any Railway officials involved in my DAR case and harassment from November-2014 to till date in the concern criminal courts to render correct justice.
i)Pass such other order(s) that If the respondents or Railway Administration agree to do correct justice to me and my life with compensation as I stated and desired in this application Central Administrative Tribunalin the column of "Relief Sought" through this Hon'ble Tribunal, Then I shall be permitted only to take any serious legal action without seeking any kind of permission or grant for cognizance from any Government Official/Employee like NIMHANS and POLICE DEPARTMENT to render correct justice and the balance Compensation which I am liable to get from NIMHANS and POLICE DEPARTMENT also, who are actual reason for wasting my precious time and un return valuable 12 long years and if necessary my case may be transferred to CBI Department against "NIMHANS and POLICE DEPARTMENT' Only.
Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Miscellaneous Application No. 310/2026 is filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 2595 days in filing the OA.
Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant, Junior Clerk was absorbed from ESM Grade III/SSE/Sig/HQ/Senior DSTE /O/UBL to Junior Clerk Cum Typist and posted to work in Computer Section/Senior DPO/O/UBL and transferred in the month of November, 2014 from Senior DPO/O/UBL (Hubli Personnel Branch) to Senior DPO/O/SBC (Bengaluru Personnel Branch) on one way transfer and posted in Law Cell at Senior DPO/O/SBC. Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu. The applicant alleging Central Administrative Tribunalharassment against some of the officers in the department contends that MC 3814/2018 filed by his wife got concluded with a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on 05.04.2022. The applicant was issued with a charge memorandum dated 04.09.2017 on the charges of remaining absent unauthorizedly from duty from 03.05.2017 to 04.09.2017 and onwards which culminated in the penalty order of removal from service dated 30.07.2018. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and further revision before the Revisional Authority unsuccessfully. Hence, the applicant has preferred this OA
Shri Rage Kiran Kumar, party-in-person submitted that due to the harassment and mind games played by the railway officials and filing of false criminal cases against him, his life has been spoiled. NIMHANS also tried to prove him wrongly as mentally retarded using his father and family’s false witnesses by the instructions and orders of railway officials. Allegations are made against the police department as well for losing twelve years of precious time of his life. Applicant submitted that indeed there was no unauthorized absence for issuing the major penalty order of Central Administrative Tribunalremoval from service with immediate effect vide order dated 30.07.2018. Applicant submits that such penalty confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority deserves to be set aside, directing the respondents to restore him to his post with original pay/seniority and consequential benefits including arrears and allowances as claimed.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the applicant, party-in-person, and perused the material on record.
It is well-settled that the departmental proceedings are based on preponderance of probabilities unlike a criminal case where the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. ((1995) 6 SCC 749), a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence Central Administrative Tribunal and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:
“12.Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13.The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed Central Administrative Tribunal before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India vs. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
It is discerned from the order of the Appellate Authority that the applicant was removed from service in 2009 for unauthorized absence and subsequently reinstated but the applicant has not reformed yet remained unauthorizedly absent from 03.05.2017 to 04.09.2017 consequent on which, he was removed from service vide penalty advice dated 30.07.2018 accepting the Inquiry Officer’s finding on the charges as proved. The Revisional Authority has reiterated the same. It is observed by the Revisional Authority that adequate chances were given to the applicant to mend his ways but the applicant has chosen to not do so. For the reasons best known to the applicant, no orders of dismissal passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are challenged herein.
No procedural lapses/flaws/irregularities in conducting the inquiry and passing of the penalty order of removal from service dated 30.07.2018 are pleaded or argued. No legal grounds are urged. The arguments advanced was that he was harassed in the office and Central Administrative Tribunalmisguided by the family members. There being no unauthorized absence on his part, issuing of penalty order of removal from service is wholly unjust and arbitrary. On the aspects of delay, the applicant submitted that he was in Parappana Agrahara central jail and rehabilitation centre for some time and finally acquitted from the criminal cases filed against him. These submissions of the applicant are vague and general in nature. No satisfactory explanation/sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for condoning the inordinate delay of 2595 days in filing the OA.
It is trite that the court can come to the rescue of a litigant who is vigilant about his rights but not to an indolent. The applicant sleeping over the matter for about 8 years cannot rise from the slumber according to his convenience. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 “there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.” The grounds urged and associated reliefs claimed are totally misconceived. We find no merit in the OA as well as in the MA filed for condonation of delay.
Resultantly, OA as well as MA No. 310/2026 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.