Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
1. Shri Vinod Kumar, counsel for applicant and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, counsel for respondents are present.
2. This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in OA No.916 of 2014. The operating portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :-
“Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.09.2012 passed by Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) and order dated 11.3.2014 passed by Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the enquiry report afresh by a reasoned and speaking order meeting all the grounds raised by the applicant in his reply, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order in accordance with law and relevant rules on the subject and communicate the decision to the applicant. It is made clear that the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit under the Rule 5 (4) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. No order as to costs.”
Against this order, the respondents have moved before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in a Writ Appeal No.6248 of 2019. The Hon’ble High Court has modified the above order of this Tribunal. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as below :-
“ Heard Sri Devendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 10th of October, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.
The Tribunal by the said order has allowed the original application of the respondent no.2 and has ordered for setting aside the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority with regard to the removal of the petitioner from the post of Booking Clerk. The Tribunal at the same time, permitted the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order meeting out all grounds raised by the petitioners in his reply within a period of three months in accordance with law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in remitting the matter to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, the direction is to consider and decide the enquiry report which is incorrect.
A reading of the order of the Tribunal, it reveals that there is some clerical or typographical error and what the Tribunal intends is to direct the authority concerned to deal with the matter afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The order of the Tribunal, accordingly, stand clarify to the above extend.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and there is no flaw in the enquiry report.
The order of the Tribunal reveals that it had not set aside the enquiry report and we also are not disturbing the same leaving the authority free to pass a fresh order on the basis of the enquiry report already on record.
With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed of.”
3. In compliance of the above order, the respondents has passed a speaking order. The operating portion of the order is reproduced as below :-
“ In view of the facts discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that the misconducts on the part of the applicant are of serious nature, they have been established in the inquiry as well as on the basis of available records. Hence, the applicant deserves a stringent punishment, and the punishment of removal from service inflicted upon him commensurate with the seriousness of his misconduct. Hence, he does not deserve any reduction in the punishment of removal from service imposed upon him. He may prefer an appeal to the ADRM (Operation) within 45 days from receipt of this order. The appeal so preferred should not contain any improper or disrespectful language.”
4. In his objection, the applicant has submitted that he has not received the benefit of Rule 5 (4) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1968. Rule 5 (4) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1968 is reproduced as below :-
“Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Railway servant, is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, was originally imposed, the Railway servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the competent authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders:
[Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.]”
5. A careful analysis of the judgment of this Tribunal and modification by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad reveals that enquiry report has not been annulled and respondents were directed to pass fresh order on the basis of enquiry report already on record. Rule 5(4) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1968 comes into picture when it is decided to hold further enquiry against the charged officer. In the instant case the enquiry report has not been set aside so there is no need to invoke rule 5(4) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1968. As ordered by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, respondents were directed to pass a fresh order on the basis of the enquiry report already on record. The order passed by the Railway Authorities (respondents) are in accordance with the order passed by this Tribunal and modified by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No.6248 of 2019 in order dated 02.05.2019.
6. Sufficient compliance has been done by the authorities and there is no question of wilful/deliberate disobedience of the order of the Tribunal as modified by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.
7. In the light of above discussion, the contemnors are discharged from the liability and notice issued against them is withdrawn.
8. All associated MAs stand disposed of.
