Radha Kant Prasad v. Union Of India And ORS.
12.11.2024 (D/L-7) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.) W.P.C.T. 99 of 2024 Radha Kant Prasad Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. S. K. Datta, Mr. Barun Chatterjee ...for the Petitioner Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Mr. Ashok Halder ...for the Union of India
1. The writ petitioner was working as a Loco Pilot in Kharagpur Division of South Eastern Railway. On 3rd November, 2018 he was served with an office order stating that some incumbents had held an unlawful demonstration in front of the Combined Crew Lobby in front of the Kharagpur Railway Station.
2. There was an allegation that government officials had been manhandled, and that demonstrators prevented other government officials from performing their official duty and also misbehaved with the railway administrative officers.
3. Assigning such reasons the petitioner was removed by the order dated 3rd November, 2018. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 12th April, 2019. A revision against the said order was also preferred and since no order was being passed on the revision the petitioner preferred O.A. 637 of 2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The same was disposed of on 15th January, 2020 directing the Revisional Authority to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4. It was clearly stated in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that the right of applicant for reinstatement and consequential benefits shall be governed by the order passed by the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority passed the order on 11th August, 2020. A unique order has been passed by the Revisional Authority which has been quoted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 12th April, 2021 passed in O.A. No. 833 of 2020, which reads as follows:
"Considering the entire case, in the light of Hon'ble CAT/CAL's Orders vis-a-vis the revision petition dated 05.02.2020 submitted by the said Shri Nikap, the undersigned decides for a through departmental inquiry at the level of Appellate Authority. The Order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the Appellate Authority (AA) is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the said Shri
Nikap, afresh holding inquiry following the proper procedure of The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 as amended from time to time."
5. The Revisional Authority's order was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Tribunal in O.A. 833 of 2020. The learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority giving liberty to act strictly in accordance with law.
6. The order passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the Union of India in a writ proceedings in W.P.C.T. 73 of 2021. This Court in the said proceedings being guided by the order passed in W.P.C.T. 48 of 2021 earlier filed by the petitioner, has taken note of the fact that the Union of India has already complied with the order passed therein reinstating the present petitioner. The writ petition has thus been disposed of directing the Union of India to take necessary follow up steps as relevant extract of order of Writ Court (W.P.C.T 48 of 2021) reads as follows:
"The respondent authorities were, however, given opportunity to act strictly in accordance with law. We expected the petitioners to have gracefully accepted the said order for the various holes in the measures adopted by them to remove the respondent. Mr. Rabindranath Bag, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that enquiry proceedings may proceed after keeping the respondent under suspension and he may be deemed to have been reinstated for the purpose of holding enquiry, however, we are not making any observation on this. But it is needless to mention that the order of removal has been set aside. He needs to be reinstated in his service
but whether he should be allowed to discharge his function regularly or to be kept under suspension is for the authority to decide.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition being WPCT 48 of 2021 stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court."
7. Subsequent thereupon respondent authorities have reinstated the petitioner and while doing so in the order of reinstatement dated 10th December, 2021 they have suspended him by the said order. Relevant extract of which reads as follows:
"The Railway Servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the undersigned from the date of the original order of removal from service and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. The Railway Administration reserves the right to take fresh action in terms of Rule - 9 of R.S (D&A) Rules, 1968 by issuing fresh major penalty charge sheet as deem fit and proper considering the circumstances of the case without prejudice."
8. Pursuant thereto a fresh enquiry had been initiated by an order dated 8th November, 2021 through a fresh charge memo dated 11th January, 2022. The charge for which the petitioner was proceeded against reads as follows:
"It was reported that on 03.11.2018, from around 10:30 hrs in the morning to till 20:30 hrs, group of Running Staff started unlawful demonstration, in front of Combined Crew Lobby Kharagpur on the issue of suicide of late Shri Guddu Kumar Keshari, ex ALP/KGP and Railway Administration was trying to arrange all kinds of due benefits to the eligible family members of deceased staff. However, it was also reported that suddenly Running Staff had started
agitation in front of Combined Crew Lobby near Railway station, KGP.
Sri Radha Kant Prasad, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods)/KGP, (as identified by Sri Laxmikanta Behera, Crew Controller) is one of employees who has committed an act of misconduct wherein he started vandalism with others inside the crew lobby and then instigated the mob to make situation worse for the railway official present there. Sri Radha Kant Prasad manhandled Government Officials, forcibly prevented other Govt. Officials from performing official duty, misbehaved with higher Railway Administrative officers. Sri Radha Kant Prasad also indulged in violence and vandalism in the Combined Crew Lobby and instigated other running staff to gherao combined crew lobby and disturbed peace. This led to stoppage of movement of trains almost for continuous 08 hrs incurring significant loss of revenue as well as disrupted traffic eventually causing great inconvenience to the public.
By the above cited act Shri RADHA KANT PRASAD Loco Pilot (Goods)/KGP has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Railway servant contravening Rule No. 3.1, (iii), (xxi) and Rule No. 07 of R.S. (Conduct) Rules 1966 thereby rendering himself liable for disciplinary action being taken against him in terms of Railway Servant D & A Rules 1968 as amended from time to time."
9. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted in respect of the said charge he has been removed from the railway service with immediate effect without any compassionate allowance by an order passed by Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Corporation), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur dated 26th April, 2023.
10. The appeal against the same was preferred before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Kharagpur who upheld the punishment order reserving the petitioner's liberty to avail the remedy of revision. The petitioner had approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.
350/1101/2023 which has been partly allowed on 28th February, 2024, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is submitted that from bare perusal of the same it is obvious that the charges framed under the charge memo have been found to be not proved. The findings to this extent are explicit from bare perusal of the paragraph 12 of the order passed by the Tribunal which is extracted hereinbelow.
"12. After consideration of aforesaid facts and legal provisions, we are of the opinion that enquiry has been vitiated on the ground that author of JAG Inquiry Report (Preliminary Report) was not examined before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the JAG Inquiry Report has no meaning and lost its significance. The statement of sole witness also does not confirm the involvement of appellant in any misconduct. From the presence among many people at the site of incidence, no reasonable conclusion can be drawn that the charged official was involved in the act of vandalism. The charges framed under Article-I appears as not proved."
12. Though clear and specific finding have been returned of the charges having not been proved in the proceedings arising out of the charge memo dated 11th January, 2022 the Tribunal has proceeded to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration on
quantum of punishment. It is this consequential direction which according to the learned senior counsel is unsustainable in view of the finding as extracted above. Once the Tribunal was of the opinion that the charges had not been proved there was no occasion for examining the issue regarding the quantum of punishment. The logical corollary of such a finding would be reinstatement of the petitioner and consequential benefits arising out of such reinstatement being granted to him.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Railway finds it difficult to sustain the direction for remanding the matter for consideration of quantum of punishment having regard to the findings of the Tribunal extracted in the order itself.
14. We make it clear that there is no submission that any writ petition has been preferred by the Railways against the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
15. The findings of the Tribunal, therefore, that the charges were not proved is not in dispute. That being so, we are in agreement with the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel that there is no occasion for leaving any
scope or liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision with respect to quantum of punishment.
16. In so far as, the said direction as contained in paragraph of order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28th February, 2024 in O.A. 350/1101/2023, we observe that it is unsustainable. We set aside the said direction of the Tribunal in the impugned order.
17. In view of the fact that the charges have not been held proved we find the petitioner to be entitled to consequential benefits on account of quashing of the impugned order of punishment.
18. At this stage, learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation arising out of the earlier removal dated 3rd November, 2018 the matter has culminated by passing of the final order in W.P.C.T. 48 of 2021 whereby and where under no back wages were allowed to the petitioner and, therefore, the consequential benefits in respect of the period prior thereto cannot be reopened in the present proceedings.
19. We are not in agreement with such submission advanced by the respondent for the simple reason that the respondents themselves while passing the consequential order of reinstatement
in terms of the order passed in writ proceedings arising out of W.P.C.T. 48 of 2021 have maintained continuity with the action impugned in the present proceedings and linked it with the removal order dated 3rd November, 2018 by directing suspension with effect from the order of removal dated 3rd November, 2018 in their order dated 8th November, 2021 which has been extracted above. The authorities themselves have treated the impugned order to be in continuity with and relating back to the earlier removal order dated 3rd November, 2021 and, therefore, it does not lies in their mouth to contend the contrary while resisting the petitioner's prayer that relief and consequential benefits may not be allowed accordingly. We, therefore, do not accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India in this regard.
20. It is by now clear that in respect of both the periods arising out of order of removal dated 3rd November, 2018 or based on the charge memo dated 11th January, order of punishment is found to be unsustainable and, therefore, we clarify that the consequential benefits of the petitioner will be available to him with effect from 3rd November, 2018.
21. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. The same is disposed of.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)