Judgment:
ORDER
Sharda Aggarwal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CW.No. 375/99 and CW.No.419/99 directed against two separate orders dated 4th December, 1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) by which the orders of the Disciplinary Authority followed by the order of the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority imposing a penalty of removal from service of Suresh and Chatra Pal were set aside in two writ petitioners.
2. Respondent No.1 was a casual labour working under I.O.2./BALMAU, Moradabad Division of Indian Railways (in short as IOW/BLM). Suresh claimed to be engaged as such from 1st April,1978 up to 28th February,1982. Whereas Chatra Pal claimed to be engaged as such from 4th October, 1977 to 30th March,1982. The Divisional Railway Manager, respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of substitute Loco Cleaner, the pre-condition of which was that the applicant should have been working prior to 4th October,1978. Respondent No.1 in both the cases applied and after the interview and after getting the previous working of the applicants and verified by deputing a Senior inspector, respondent No.1 Suresh was appointed as substitute Loco Cleaner vide order dated 26th July, 1988 whereas Chatra Pal was appointed as such vide order dated 14th July, 1988. While they were working as substitute Loco Cleaner, they were served with separate charge sheets for imposition of a major penalty. Both of them were placed under suspension vide separate orders. They were served with statement of articles of charge and the statement of imputation, on the basis of which the charges were to be sustained. In short, the statement of imputations, on the basis of which charges were to be sustained was that they managed to secure employment as substitute Loco Cleaner LF/LRJ by showing that they had worked under IOW/BLK during the period 1st April, 1978 to 28th February, 1982 in case of Suresh and from 4th October, 1977 to 30th March, 1982 in case of Chatra Pal, while it was not supported by ant valid document, On re-verification of their original working, the signatures of IOW/BLM were found forged. The allegations ware that with the connivance of respondent No. 1, as forgery was committed showing the period of their working as casual labour prior to 4th October,1978 which was pre-requisite for the post of substitute Loco Cleaner. The further imputation against them was that by doing so they failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant and thus contravened rule No.3.1 (i) and (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. The Enquiry was conducted and a penalty of removal from service was imposed. The Appellate and Reviewing Authority confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved by the same, Suresh filed OA.No.193/96 and Chatra pal filed OA.No.1327/96. By two separate orders dated 4th December, 1998, both the OAs were allowed quashing the orders of punishment of removal from service and directing the petitioner herein to reinstate them in service forthwith with all consequential benefits and to pay to them the entire back wages for the period they were kept out of service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. The petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred the present writ petitions. In both the writ petitions, operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal was stayed by this Court.
3. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the material placed on record indicates that the main ground taken before the Tribunal by respondent No.1 was that the delinquent was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry as some of the documents, required by him, were not made available and also the witnesses to be examined by him in defense were not allowed to be examined. The respondent delinquent desired to be supplied documents like verification from in original, pay vouchers for the period he worked as casual labour, casual labour attendance register etc. By these documents, the delinquent wanted to disprove the allegations that the did not work as casual labour prior to 4th October, 1978. The Enquiry Officer has declined to supply most of these documents on various grounds like they were with the Vigilance Department or were weeded out. The examination of the witnesses in defense was declined on the ground that solitary witness Shri S.P.Jutla had proved the department's case and separate departmental proceedings were initiated against the witnesses and their testimony would not be relevant for the proceedings. The contention of the delinquent found favor with the Tribunal to hold that the delinquent was entitled to reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner which he could not do as the relevant documents to defend his case were not made available to him and also the witnesses by whose examination he could have disproved the charges against him were not allowed to be examined.
4. Mr. H.K.Gangwani, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the orders of the Tribunal directing the respondent No.1 to be reinstated in service with continuity and all other consequential benefits with full back wages for the period he was kept out of service is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record. It is submitted that the evidence was allowed before the Enquiry Officer and the witness examined by the Department was cross-examined by the delinquent and as such the enquiry cannot be held to be vitiated. It is submitted that it was not in the domain of the Tribunal to appreciate evidence and reach its own conclusions. The submission is that neither the Tribunal nor this Court would normal interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority except where it shocks the judicial conscious in which case it can mould the relief by directing the Authority to reconsider the punishment or to hold a fresh enquiry. Somehow, on facts learned counsel for the petitioner failed to justify the declining of the Enquiry Officer to make available the documents required by the delinquent for his defense and his refusal to summon the witnesses sought to be examined in defense.
5. The only substantial issue for decision on the charges against the delinquent was as to whether the delinquent had been working as a casual labour with IOW/BLM from the dates they claimed i.e. prior to 4th October, 1978 which made them eligible for the post of substituted Loco Cleaner or whether they had forged or manipulated those dates. It was possible for the delinquent to disprove the charges against him if the documents like, original casual labour card, attendance register, pay vouchers, verification report etc., were made available to him. These documents coupled with the witnesses which the delinquent wanted to examined but were dis-allowed, would have established that the delinquent had been working or not as a casual labour prior to 4th October, 1978. By not supplying these document and not allowing the summoning of witnesses, as desired by the delinquent, he was seriously prejudiced to put forth his defense. It amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. The findings of the Tribunal to the extent it set aside the impugned orders to punishment of the Department, find favor with us. However, we do not find any justification, in granting the delinquent full back wages for the period he was kept out of service. The delinquent was removed from service some time in the year 1994 and since then he has not been working with Railways. The enquiry proceedings are found vitiated basically on the ground that the delinquent was not supplied with the relevant documents, which prejudiced his defense. There was also an imputation against the delinquent that the failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of railway servant. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find it expedient to direct the payment of back wages. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified as under:
The impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority of punishment of removal from service followed by hoarders of the Appellate and Reviewing Authority are quashed. Respondent No.1 in both the cases is directed to be reinstated in service within one month from the date of this order without back wages with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh departmental enquiry against the respondent No.1, if so advised.
6. With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of with no order as to costs.