The case was disposed of on September 18, 2023. The case case was listed on 26 occasions. Bharat, the sole respondent died on November 16, 2021. He was the sole respondent in Union of India v. Bharat case which was filed in Patna High Court on July14, 2021 against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, Patna. The order of CAT, Patna dated May 2, 2019 was authored by Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J) and Dinesh Sharma, Member (A) in favour of Bharat, son of Late Rangila Manjhi, Substitute Safaiwala, under Chief Health Inspector, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur. From the final judgement of the High, it is crystal clear that CAT's order has survived.
Patna High Court registered the case on on July 19, 2021. There were 10 additional petitioners namely-General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar, The Chief Medical Director,East Central Railway, Hajipur, Divisional Railway Manager,East Central Railway, Sonepur, Bihar, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,East Central Railway, Sonepur, Chief Medical Superintendent,East Central Railway, Sonepur,Senior Divisional Financial Manager,East Central Railway, Sonepur, Divisional Medical Officer, (Dental), East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Dr. Shaligram Choudhary,Divisional Medical Officer,East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur and Shailesh Kumar Sinha,Health Inspector-Cum-Inquiry Officer, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur.Dr. Anand Kumar was petitioner's advocate. Abhay Shankar Jha was respondent's advocate.Subsequently, Dharamshila Devi, wife of Late Bharat, resident of Village-Goshi Amnor,Saran,Bihar and Rubi Kumari, daughter of Late Bharat joined as a co-respondents.The additional advocates for the respondent were Anshay Bahadur Mathur, M.P. Dixit, Sanjay Kumar Chaubey and Swastika. Notably. M.P. Dixit was the advocate for Bharat before the CAT, Patna and The respondents were represented by B.K. Choudhary with Sri Kumar Sachin.
Prior to the disposal, the first order dated August 24, 2021 reads: "None appears on behalf of the petitioners when the matter is called. 2. In the interest of justice, let the matter be listed on 21.09.2021." The second order dated September 23,2021 reads; "The matter has been heard via video conferencing. As prayed for by Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, on personal ground, the matter be listed on 1st October, 2021." The third order dated November 2, 2021 reads: "Issue notice to the sole respondent for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process must be filed within three weeks. List the matter on 14.12.2021."
There were no orders during November 2021-May 2023. The order dated June 23,2023 reads: "As prayed for, re-list this matter on 07.07.2023."
The order of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Jitendra Kumar bench dated July 11, 2023 reads: "None appears for the petitioner. In order to provide one more opportunity, list this matter on 25.07.2023. If there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, petition would be dismissed for non prosecution. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent on instruction submitted that the sole respondent is stated to have died during the pendency on 16.11.2021.Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to file Interlocutory Application bringing legal heirs of the respondent, if so advised." The respondent died in November 2021 but the Court was informed about it in July 2023.
The order dated July 26, 2023 reads:"Registry is hereby directed to tag the interlocutory application stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner in bringing legal heirs of the sole respondent on record. Re-list this matter on 02.08.2023." The petitioner took some 20 months to bring legal heirs of the sole respondent on record through its interlocutory application (I.A.). The Court's website shows the status of I.A. to be pending as of September 20, 2023.
The order dated August 2, 2023 reads: "Mr. M.P. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent intends to file Vakalatnama for legal heirs of the respondent. He is permitted to file it in the Registry. Re-list this matter on 23.08.2023." The order dated August 23,2023 reads: Respondent–Bharat is stated to have died, therefore, petitioner – Union of India filed I.A. No. 1 of 2023 to bring legal heir of deceased-Bharat on record. Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2023. 2. Heard I.A. No. 1 of 2023 for the reasons stated in the application and affidavit. I.A. No. 1 of 2023 stands allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners are hereby directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title during the course of the day. 4. Relist this matter on 18.09.2023.
The oral judgement dated September 18, 2023 reads: "In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 'For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, preferably in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J) and Hon’ble Dinesh Sharma, Member (A), in O.A. No.903/2018, whereby and where under the Learned Tribunal has interfered with the punishment order of removal dated 30.08.2018 as well as the inquiry report dated 11.10.2018 as well as the inquiry report dated 28.05.2018 and directed the petitioners/respondents to consider the case of Respondent/Applicant for his re-instatement in service within 60 days.' 2. During pendency of the present petition, the sole respondent-Bharat died on 16.11.2021. Therefore, the proceedings stand abated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the above issue. 4. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of as abated."
The prayer of the Union of India, the petitioner and its ten additional petitioners against Bharat, the petitioner from Saran for the relief remained unaddressed. They had prayed for "quashing the order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J) and Hon’ble Dinesh Sharma, Member (A), in O.A. No.903/2018, whereby and where under the Learned Tribunal has interfered with the punishment order of removal dated 30.08.2018 as well as the inquiry report dated 11.10.2018 as well as the inquiry report dated 28.05.2018 and directed the petitioners/respondents to consider the case of Respondent/Applicant for his re-instatement in service within 60 days."
It is evident that after the death of respondent, a safaikarmachari, Union Government did not dispute the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench in Patna High Court. Tribunal's order was based on High Court's earlier order dated April 25. 2017 in B. S. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.
The order of Jayesh V. Bhairavia, and Dinesh Sharma led Tribunal stands vindicated, now that the petition of 11 petitioners has been disposed of as abated. In its order dated August 3, 2022, it has been observed by Supreme Court's bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian in Sukhram since deceased v. Kisahnrao that "Abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party". The proceedings abate on the death of the accused, as their continuance thereafter will be infructuous and meaningless.
The order of the Tribunal reads: The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs : -
“8[1] That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 30.08.2018, 11.10.2018 passed by the Respondent No.9 and 6 as contained in Annexure-A/9 and A/11 respectively together with Inquiry Report dated 28.05.2018 communicated through Letter dated 25.07.2018 as contained in Annexure-A/7 which has been submitted at the behest and dictated of Vigilance Officials as evident from the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 as contained in Annexure-A/9 itself. 8[2] That Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to post the applicant on regular basis treating his initial appointment on 16.04.1999 for all purposes.” The Respondent No, 9 and 6 are the Chief Medical Superintendent, East Central Railway, Sonenpur and Dr. Shaligram Choudhary, Divisional Medical Officer, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur respectively.
The Tribunal observed: " It is noticed that in an identical case, i.e. in OA/050/00611/2018, Narendra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein this Tribunal has dealt with the issue with regard to charges leveled against the applicant-delinquent of the same department that on the basis of applicant’s false declaration that he had past experience as Safaiwala since 1976 and on that basis had obtained employment as Casual Labour which is found irregular because at the relevant time, the period of so called work experience, the applicant was minor and practically not possible to gain such work experience
due to tender age. Therefore, the initial engagement of the applicant on the basis of his past experience has been found irregular. Accordingly, the charge memorandum was issued after continuous service of more than 12 years that too after the applicant-delinquent was granted temporary status in the year 2001-02 and declared successful in the screening test conducted in the year 2005 after duly scrutinized by the respondents themselves and thereby considered the applicant’s service as temporary against Group-D post. The applicant has declared that he had never submitted any certificate of past experience and his engagement was as fresher and not based on any past experience. The said fact was corroborated by the order dated 2005 whereby he was declared successful in the screening test considering the service record. It is also noticed that during the enquiry the report of preliminary enquiry dated 12.04.1996 on which disciplinary proceeding was initiated was never supplied to him and without any sufficient prove the enquiry officer opined that the charges were partially proved against the applicant. Since the applicant had admitted that his engagement was not on the basis of any past experience. The said opinion of the enquiry officer is vague in nature and the disciplinary authority without considering the material on record in its true spirit in mechanical manner held that the charges leveled against the applicant is proved, and therefore, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by issuing the aforesaid impugned orders." The CAT's order dated May 2, 2019 in Narendra Kumar vs. Union of India had directed: " The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for his reinstatement in service forthwith, preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." This order had relied on High Court's earlier verdict.
The order of Jayesh V.
Bhairavia, and Dinesh Sharma led Tribunal concluded: "The aforesaid disciplinary proceedings and charge memorandum are identical with the aforesaid OA No. 611/2018 wherein the said punishment order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been found suffering from infirmities as also contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Patna in CWJC No.12812 of 2016 decided on 25.04.2017. The said impugned orders of punishment has been quashed and set aside with directions upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant to reinstate him in service forthwith, preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the present case also, in our view, same principle will apply as it is a squarely covered case. Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders in the present OA is quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents to respondents to consider the case of the applicant to reinstate him in service forthwith, preferably within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
No comments:
Post a Comment