LLB Mumbai Univ
CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH : BANGALORE
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION No. 70 OF 2009
.....DAY,
THIS THE ..... DAY OF ........, 2010
HON'BLE Dr.
K. B. SURESH ... MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SMT.
LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)
B.B. Meti,
S/o Late
Bheemappa,
Aged about 47
years,
Working as Loco
Pilot (Passenger Gr.II),
O/o the Chief
Crew Controller
South Western
Railway,
Hubli. ... Applicant
(By Advocate
M/s. Subbarao & Co.)
Vs.
1. The Union of
India,
Rep. by the
General Manager,
South
Western Railway,
Hubli.
2. The General
Manager,
South
Western Railway,
Hubli
Division,
Hubli.
3. The
Divisional Railway Manager,
South
Western Railway,
Hubli.
4. Senior
Divisional Mechanical Engineer/Power,
South
Western Railway,
Hubli. ... Respondents
(By Advocate
Shri N.S. Prasad,
Senior
Advocate for Railways)
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt.
Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The OA is against the order dated 13.02.2009 passed by the Sr.
Divisional Mechanical Engineer/Power, South Western Railway, Hubli
(Respondent No. 5)(Annexure-A/15).
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has mentioned the following
facts of the case:-
(i) The applicant was appointed as a Gangman as per Office Order
No.13, dated 4.12.1984. During 1987, he was permitted change of
cadre from Gangman Engineering Department to Khalasi Mechanical
Department. Thereafter, from 1987 to 1999, he has been getting due
promotions till he became Goods Driver in the Pay scale of
Rs.5000-8000/-.
(ii) On 12.11.2001, a charge sheet was issued (Annexure-A/4). The
following three charges were framed against him.
-
That on 8.2.1999 when the applicant produced a Caste certificate dated 16.1.1984 purported to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Gadag, indicating that he belongs to Tokarekoli Tribe which comes under Scheduled Tribe.
-
That the applicant was also asked to produce his school leaving/transfer certificate from the school he last studied and his permanent residential address at his native place vide their office letter No. H/O 171/BCT/CV/IV/BBM dated 10.2.1999, which he failed to do so inspite of severan reminders.
-
That the applicant has produced a school transfer certificate which is found to be false on verification.
(iii) From the above charges, it is clear that the main ground
against the applicant is that he claimed himself to be a person
belonging to Tokarikoli caste (which is a ST caste) which in fact, he
is not and therefore not fit to remain in service. The final order
of dismissal, howevr, mentions that he produced three certificates to
the Railway authorities
(a) porported to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Gadag, stating
that the applicant belongs to Tokarikoli;
(b) a certificate purporting to be a transfer certificate from the
School,
-
a certificate dated 23.12.1985 purporting to be a caste certificate declaring the applicant as Kadu Kuruba.
The impugned order further mentions that while the first two
certificates have been proved to be false certificates. If the
Railway authorities only go by the third certificate and accept him
as a person belonging to Kadu Kuruba, then, since the Kuruba caste
does not come under ST. Therefore, he is liable to be thrown out of
service. This clearly shows that the Railway authorities have not
correctly perused the list of Sts pertaining to the State of
Karnataka. The learned counsel points out to page 196, entry No.
Karnataka – 16, which is Kadu Kuruba in the book named "Swamy's
Cmpilation on Reservation and Consession for Scs and S.Ts, Other
Backward Classes, ......." 9th Edition 2008.
After issuing the charge sheet to the applicant on 12.11.2001, a
regular Enquiry Officer was appointed who, as per the learned
cousel, did not give/afford full opportunity to the applicant and
based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary
Authority passed an order dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure-A/7) dismissing
the applicant from service. Against this order, the applicant
preferred an appeal to the Respondent No.4 who kept it pending for
quite some time, whereafter the applicant filed an OA before this
Tribunal in OA No.270/2005 which was disposed of by this Tribunal
with a direction to Respondent No.4 to pass an order in the appeal
filed by the applicant within two months v its order dated 8.7.2005.
It is
therefore, quite obvious that that the Respondent No.4 has not acted
in the interest of natural justice while issuing the impugned order
dated 13.02.2009. For whatever reason, once an order has been passed
on one inquiry report and in the appeal the penalty of dismissal has
been quashed, it has the effect of nullifying the earlier
disciplinary order as well as the charge sheet. Therefore, if the
2nd order of dismissal has to be passed, it cannot be done
without giving a fresh charge sheet to the incumbent
In view of
the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order
dated 13.02.2009 and accordingly it is set aside
The OA is
thus allowed. The applicant should be allowed to join his duties
with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
(LEENA
MEHENDALE) (Dr. K.B. SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment