Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.) The petitioner has challenged, by filing the present writ petition, judgement and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 5.4.2007, passed in Original Application No.1497 of 1998. The Tribunal has found that the punishment of reduction in the lowest stage of time scale, permanently till his retirement, with cumulative effect, imposed vide order dated 13.8.1996, as well as its affirmation in appeal, vide order dated 12.1.1998, are valid and do not suffer from any infirmity.
From the perusal of record, it transpires that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, while he was working as Station Master, Belatal Railway Station in Jhansi Division of Central Railway (now Northern Central Railway). The charge against the petitioner was that he submitted application for leave from 14.4.1994 to 17.4.1994 and rest on 18.4.1994, which was subsequently tempered with, by him, so as to change it from 14.4.1994 to 27.4.1994 and rest on 28.4.1994. It was also stated that though his leave application from 29.4.1994 to 30.4.1994 and rest on 1.5.1994 was rejected by the Station Superintendent, yet he absented himself from duty upto 15.5.1994. He was also charged for not obeying the directions of his immediate superior i.e. Station Superintendent.
Petitioner denied the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet and submitted that the leave application was tempered by Sri Lakhan Lal Ahirwar and Sri J.N. Tiwari etc., who were inimical to the petitioner. It was further stated that on account of malice held by aforesaid persons, petitioner had been framed, which is nothing but conspiracy against him. Various other contentions were also advanced in support of his defence including that the charge sheet had been interpolated etc. The enquiry proceeded in the matter. Different dates were fixed and the petitioner was afforded opportunity in the enquiry proceedings, but it appears that the petitioner did not cooperate and the Enquiry Officer after adjourning proceedings to different dates, proceeded exparte in the matter and submitted his report, holding the petitioner guilty. A show cause notice along with the enquiry report was served, to which the petitioner submitted his reply reiterating the stand what had already been stated by him in reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner also complained of denial of proper opportunity in the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the punishment, and the appeal filed by petitioner was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed the original application and the Tribunal after considering the grievance of the petitioner on merits, proceeded to reject the plea of the petitioner, vide its judgement and order dated 5.4.2007, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
We have heard Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri K.P. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has essentially challenged the judgement of the Tribunal on the ground that the plea of malice on part of Sri Lakhan Lal Ahirwar in manipulating the petitioner's leave application has not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. The proceedings, it is alleged are actuated by malafide on part of Sri Ahirwar and others, and the petitioner has been made to suffer on its account. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he was actually not absent from 2.5.1994 till 15.5.1994 and his presence was noticed in the diary maintained by the Station Master and because the attendance register itself had been got stolen by Sri Ahirwar, as such his absence from duty was manipulated to penalise the petitioner. Denial of opportunity during the enquiry proceedings have also been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that relevant documents in support of the charges since had been denied and the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in a fair and proper manner, as such, the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner is bad in law.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, has refuted all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It has been stated that there was no material brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate the allegation that Sri Ahirwar and others were inimical to him. He further stated that the leave applications clearly contained interpolations done by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the enquiry against the petitioner was validly conducted, in accordance with the principle of natural justice, and the petitioner's endeavour only was to unnecessarily ask for documents which were not even relied upon against him, so as to subsequently make out a case of denial of opportunity. It was further contended that the plea of denial of opportunity was engineered by the petitioner, which lacks substance. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity of hearing and he deliberately avoided cooperation with the Enquiry Officer, leaving no other alternative but to proceed exparte and submit his report. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the interpolations in the leave application were made by the petitioner so as to justify his unauthorized absence from duty and once, this interpolation was detected, the petitioner levelled frivolous allegations to cover up his misdeeds. The charges of insubordination and refusal to work were also highlighted.
We have considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record.
Dealing with first grievance of the counsel for the petitioner of malice, held by Sri Ahirwar against petitioner, we find that apart from levelling allegation of enmity, no materials have been brought on record to substantiate it. In order to substantiate the plea of malice, the counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Annexure-15 of the writ petition, which is the judgement of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda, in Special Trial No.233 of 1997, to contend that the parties were inimical to each other. We have examined the judgement of the sessions court. It transpires that Sri Ahirwar had lodged a written complaint against the petitioner on 16.6.1994, to the effect that the petitioner is a local inhabitant and had been working in railway, at Banda for 15 years and he had been declared fit to resume his duty w.e.f. 14.6.1994. In order to depute him to work, a memo was sent to petitioner, but the same was refused. According to the complaint, the petitioner entered the house of Sri Ahirwar and hurled filthy abuses upon him and other allegations constituting offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act were also levelled. It appears that during trial the complainant, Sri Ahirwar, turned hostile and as the other witnesses also did not support the prosecution story, as such, the petitioner was acquitted by granting him benefit of doubt. From the judgement of the sessions court it is clear that the proceedings got initiated upon a complaint of Sri Lakhan Lal Ahirwar dated 16.6.1994, which was much after the period during which the leave application was said to have been tempered with. The criminal proceedings thus are in respect of a subsequent period, which cannot support plea of enmity in April, 1994. The lodging of criminal complaint in question, by Sri Ahirwar, thus does not support the contention of the petitioner, in any manner, that Sri Ahirwar held any grudge or enmity against the petitioner. During the course of the submission, we confronted the counsel for the petitioner with this aspect of the matter and required him to show any material or document which could suggest that any enmity existed between the parties, before April, 1994, which may have led to manipulation in the leave applications. The counsel for the petitioner was not able to invite our attention to any such material. The only material relied upon of the judgement of the sessions court, referred to above, does not lend support to the argument of the petitioner. In the absence of any material bringing on record any enmity existing between Sri Ahirwar and the petitioner, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that the interpolation in the leave application was resorted to out of enmity by Sri Ahirwar. The principal argument, thus advanced on behalf of the petitioner, lacks merit and is rejected.
The leave applications, interpolation whereof was the subject matter of charge and imposition of punishment have been enclosed as Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition. The leave application dated 12.4.1994 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Sanction of leave from 14.4.1994 to 17.4.2004 and rest on 18.4.1994 apparently have been interpolated and the dates 17 and 18 have been changed as 27 and 28. The endorsement on this application shows that leave was sanctioned from 14th to 17th April and rest on 18.4.1994. This interpolation is apparent from the leave application. Similarly, the subsequent application dated 24.4.1994 seeks extension from 29th April to 30th April and rest on 1.5.1994. From perusal of these applications for leave, making of interpolation is not disputed. The claim of the petitioner that this interpolation was done by Sri Ahirwar, as he held enmity against the petitioner, has not been found to have any substance. We are, therefore, not impressed by the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that these interpolations in the records were made not by the petitioner and was done by Sri Ahirwar. From the further perusal of the records, we find that the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the petitioner had not cooperated in the on going enquiry. The conclusions of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner deliberately non-cooperated with enquiry has not been doubted by the Tribunal and we are not inclined to take any different view on this count. The petitioner's grievance that he was not supplied documents to defend himself is also not worthy of acceptance, inasmuch as the documents, which have been demanded by the petitioner, had not been made the basis to prove the charge against him. The counsel for the petitioner during the course of submission also could not impress upon this court that any relevant document was denied, which had adversely affected his defence. From the consideration of the entire cause, we find substance in the view taken by the Tribunal that the enquiry proceedings were not violative of principle of natural justice. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer were findings of fact, which were not liable to be interference, does not suffer from any error of law. The petitioner has failed to make out any case calling for the interference of this court, on the basis of grounds and facts mentioned in the writ petition and consequently the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
The petitioner has also died. No order is, therefore, passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.2.2014 Ashok Kr.