Judgment:
ORAL:
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
1. Applicant has challenged order dated 5.4.2010 whereby his appeal has been rejected and order dated 17.6.2009 whereby he has been dismissed from service with a direction to the respondents to reinstate him with immediate effect with payment of full backwages/salary.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, his father, was employed with the respondent as Gangman under SSE/P WAY/DLI who usually remained sick throughout his life time. He had made nomination and also an application for granting compassionate appointment to his son, i.e., the applicant. The father of the applicant, Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, died on 9.8.2000. On the basis of his application, applicant was appointed in the Railways on compassionate grounds and he joined service in the month of May, 2001. His mother Smt. Lalti Devi was also granted family pension.
3. It is submitted by the applicant that he hails from a royal family and there were some rival opponents in his village who had dispute with regard to agricultural and residential land in the village. They had lodged a false complaint against the applicant to the effect that he was not the son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh on the basis of which charge sheet dated 10.1.2008 was served on the applicant and the family pension being paid to the widow was also stopped. After December, 2006 no pension was paid to the mother. The applicant was also dismissed from service on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that he was born out of the physical relationship between his mother and Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. In the priviledge Pass bearing No. 73276 dated 21.1.2000, one son is mentioned of 16 years whereas as per the affidavit given by the applicant himself, at the time of his appointment, his date of birth is shown as 16.3.1992, therefore, he would be of 18 years as on 21.1.2000. As such, it cannot be believed that his pass has issued in favour of the applicant. It was further mentioned that documents on record revealed that the child was born on account of illegal relationship between his mother and Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. No documentary evidence is on record that Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh had adopted the applicant (page 32). Being aggrieved, applicant had given an appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed by observing that in her statement to the Vigilance, which is part of charge sheet, Smt. Lalti Devi had said that she is the wife of Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh, brother of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, which was confirmed by Shri Rajesh Pratap Singh also. Moreover, in reply to the Article of Charges, the applicant had stated in para 4 that she was married to Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh, the younger brother of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. Same position was stated by Smt. Lalti Devi and Shri Rajesh Pratap Singh as well. It was further noted that no adoption papers were filed to show that Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh had adopted the applicant. It was further noted that no documents were produced in respect of his parentage and his proof of being son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. It was thus held that no case for interference is made out and the appeal was rejected (page 30).
4. Applicant has challenged these orders on the ground that right from the beginning he knew that he is the son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. Moreover, Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh had himself given the affidavit showing that the applicant was his son, therefore, it is wrong to suggest that applicant had given a wrong affidavit to the effect that he was the son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. Even in his Junior High School and School Leaving Certificate of 10th Class, the name of the father of applicant was shown as Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. Similarly in the Certificae of Village Pradhan and Character Certificate, the name of the father of applicant is shown as Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh and all these facts were verified before giving compassionate appointment to the applicant, therefore, it cannot be stated that he is not the son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh.
5. Respondents on the other hand have opposed this OA. They have stated the charges leveled against the applicant were as follows:-
Shri Bharat Pratap Singh Office Khalasi under CMS/DLI sought appointment in Railway on the basis of wrong affidavit submitted by him to the Administration by showing himself as son of Sh. Bahadur Singh Ex-Gangman expired on 09.08.2000. In the statement given to vigilance Sh. Bharat Pratap Singh who has stated that he was adopted son of Shri Bahadur Singh but no adoption deed was submitted by him to the administration in support of his contention that he was adopted son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. He further admitted that Smt. Lalti, his mother, is wife of Sh. Nagendra Bahadur Singh instead of Late Sh. Shyam Bahadur Singh. Sh. Nagender Bahadur is younger brother of Late Sh. Shyam Bahadur Singh. Sh. Bharat Pratap Singh managed to get appointment in railway on compassionate ground on the basis of wrong affidavit. By the above act of omission and commission Sh. Bharat Pratap Singh failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of Railway Servant by contravening Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966.
6. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led in the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave his report that the charge stands proved beyond any doubt. Copy of the Inquiry Officer’s report was given to the applicant and it was only after considering the reply of the applicant that the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. Even the Appellate Authority passed a detailed order. Applicant has not submitted any Revision Petition through proper channel to the Revisional Authority, therefore, this OA is premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. Respondents have also filed additional affidavit to state that as per family register of the applicant, father’s name of the applicant was shown as Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Lalti Devi is shown as wife of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh. It is thus clear that neither the applicant is son of Smt. Lalti Devi nor of the deceased Railway employee Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. The complainant Shri Santosh Kumar Singh had also obtained information under RTI from the Development Officer, Samipu, Pratapgarh, U.P. wherein it is stated that the applicant’s father’s name is Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh and not Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh and Smt. Lalti Devi is wife of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh. Moreover, the deceased employee had executed a registered will dated 26.11.1996 in which he had clearly stated that he is unmarried and had no issue. Even in the Election Voter List of Gram Panchayat Sujakhar, Smt. Lalti Devi is shown as wife of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh and Bharat Pratap Singh (applicant in this OA) is shown as son of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh. The complainant had received information under RTI which shows in the School Leaving Certificate of the applicant, Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh is shown as his father which clearly shows that the applicant is the son of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh and even his mother Smt. Lalti Devi is wife of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh and that applicant had claimed appointment fraudulently claiming himself to be the son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, who was elder brother of Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh as per family register. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well.
9. From the facts, as narrated above, it is evident that Smt. Lalti Devi was the wife of Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh who was the younger brother of deceased Railway employee Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. It is also an admitted position that Smt. Lalti Devi is the wife of Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant was the natural son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh as there is nothing on record to show that Smt. Lalti Devi was married to Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh nor is there evidence on record to show that applicant was adopted at any time by Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence available on record to demonstrate that the applicant was the son of Smt. Lalti Devi and Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh. Simply because there was a Railway Pass issued in respect of one son to Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, it cannot be stated that the applicant was the same son, specially when their age does not match, as noted by the authorities in their orders referred to above.
10. The law is well settled that in disciplinary proceedings, the courts cannot interfere in a routine manner. So long there is some evidence on record and the charge has been proved in the enquiry, it should be left to the authorities to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent official. In the instant case, no procedural illegality has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant in conducting the enquiry. All that he argued was that right from the beginning he had been told that Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh was his father which name was shown in his 10th Class School Leaving Certificate as well. However, that by itself would not make the applicant, son of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. Since Smt. Lalti Devi was married to Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, the younger brother of Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. Applicant was shown as son of Smt. Lalti Devi and Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, there is no adoption deed produced by the applicant to show that he was adopted by Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, therefore, authorities have rightly concluded that the applicant was not the son of Smt. Lalti Devi and Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh.
11. In view of the facts, as narrated by the respondents and the documents placed on record by way of additional affidavit, it is absolutely clear that the applicant had got compassionate appointment by giving a wrong affidavit that he was the son of late Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh. We are, therefore, satisfied that no case has been made out for interference by the Tribunal. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.