Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway, challenged an order dated 11/3/2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in O.A. No.829 of 2002. The respondent, a former Senior Booking Clerk, had been imposed a penalty of removal from service by an order dated 22/6/2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority upheld the removal on 1/11/2001, and the Revisional Authority dismissed the revision on 14/2/2002. The Tribunal partly allowed the OA, setting aside the removal order solely on the ground that the authority which issued the impugned order imposing penalty was not competent to do so. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with liberty to the petitioner to proceed in the matter by referring it to the competent authority for appropriate orders, including treatment of the period from removal to reinstatement. The High Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, who argued that the authority was competent. However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the Tribunal's finding regarding lack of competence. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld. The Court observed that the petitioner was at liberty to proceed before the competent authority in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Competence of Disciplinary Authority - Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - The Tribunal set aside the order of removal from service solely on the ground that the authority imposing the penalty was not competent. The High Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the Tribunal's finding regarding lack of competence. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld with liberty to the petitioner to proceed before the competent authority. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of removal from service on the ground that the authority which imposed the penalty was not competent to do so.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11/3/2005 is upheld. The petitioner is at liberty to proceed before the competent authority in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Competence of disciplinary authority
- Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules
- 1968
- Judicial review of administrative tribunal orders
- Reinstatement with liberty to proceed afresh
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (01) 97
WRIT PETITION NO. 4072 OF 2005
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J., M.S. Karnik, J.
Mr. T.J. Pandian for petitioners/UOI, Mr. Rahul G. Walia for respondent
Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Mr. Manoj Kumar V. Kumare, Ex-Senior Booking Clerk, C.Rly.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (Union of India) sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 11/3/2005 and uphold the penalty of removal.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that the authority which imposed the penalty was competent, contrary to the Tribunal's finding.
Previous Decisions
The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal on 22/6/2001, upheld by Appellate Authority on 1/11/2001, and Revisional Authority dismissed revision on 14/2/2002. The Tribunal set aside the removal order on 11/3/2005.
Issues
Whether the authority which imposed the penalty of removal on the respondent was competent to do so under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the authority which passed the order of removal was competent to impose penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside the removal on the ground of lack of competence of the disciplinary authority, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in that finding. The Court did not interfere with the Tribunal's decision and granted liberty to proceed before the competent authority.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal set aside the order of removal only on the ground that the authority which issued the impugned order imposing penalty on the respondent was not competent to impose penalty.
Learned Counsel was at pains to point out that the authority which passed the order of removal was competent to impose penalty.
We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the authority which imposed the penalty was not competent.
Procedural History
The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal on 22/6/2001. The Appellate Authority upheld the removal on 1/11/2001. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision on 14/2/2002. The respondent filed O.A. No.829 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which partly allowed the OA on 11/3/2005, setting aside the removal order. The Union of India filed the present writ petition on 30/1/2018.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968:
