Vishnu Prasad Tiwari vs Union of India and Others

T.K. Kaushal, J.—This petition has been preferred under Article 226/227, Constitution of India against the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 292/2006 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner, whereby it has been observed that orders passed by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, West Central Railway, Bhopal on 26-27th July, 2005, order passed by Additional Divisional Railway Manager, West. Central Railway Bhopal the aforesaid order in Revision on 5.1.2006 deserve no interference. Facts in short are that petitioner on 15.10.1986, was engaged as casual temporary labour on the basis of his Casual Labour Card No. 260898, subject to its verification. Later on disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 9 of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, on the allegation that he obtained his employment on the basis of a forged Casual Labour Service Card No. 260899. In disciplinary enquiry, charge was found proved. Vide order dated 25.7.1994, punishment of removal from service was imposed. Said order was assailed in revision by the petitioner but was of no avail.

The petitioner approached Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 100/1996. Vide order dated 15.3.2002. Original Application was allowed and department was directed to reinstate the petitioner with a liberty to resume the departmental enquiry. Aforesaid order was assailed by the department in this Court in W.P. No. 2768/2002. Vide order dated 12.3.2004. Appellate Authority was directed to pass a well reasoned order after hearing both the parties.

In compliance of aforesaid direction and after affording opportunity of personal hearing vide order dated 26/27 July, 2005. Appellate Authority maintained the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged this order in revision. Revision was dismissed. Petitioner then approached the Tribunal. Vide impugned order Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved petitioner files this petition.

Petitioner challenges the order on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry held against him. It is submitted that primarily the onus was on the department to have proof the fact that the petitioner had obtained employment on the basis of fake Casual Labour Card. It is urged that the department having fail to discharge the onus, the same was not required to be proved by the petitioner that he obtained employment on fake Casual Labour Card.

On the other hand it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that original Casual Labour Card has never been produced by the petitioner. A bunch of Casual Labour Card includes impugned Casual Labour Card was stolen from electrical Foreman office Bina and was dishonestly misused by the petitioner. It is against the Railway Service Conduct Rules to get the employment on the basis of such fake service card.

Considered the rival submissions.

It is pertinent to note that in second round of litigation. Petitioner failed to submit original Casual Labour Card to substantiate bona fides of his claim of entitlement of the employment. It is not so that respondents were obliged to prove the fact of fakeness because initial burden was on the petitioner to prove the possession of a genuine card, on the basis of which he was re-employed. Petitioner did not submit evidence of his previous engagement on the basis of which alleged Casual Labour Card was issued to him. Whereas, respondents came forward with a case that Casual Labour service card No. 260899 was stolen from the custody of the office. Matter was reported to Railway police Force Bina. In departmental enquiry proceeding opportunity was given to the petitioner for production of Casual Labour service card. Pending departmental proceedings, aforesaid card was sent for verification to the card issuing authority who in turn vide letter dated 9/11 August, 1990 and 23rd November, 1990 certified the card to be fake.

Contention of learned Counsel for petitioner that respondent discharged his duties is countered by the respondents stating that the same does not create any right in his favour to remain in employment when his initial engagement is found to be based on fake card.

We find no substance in the submission on behalf of the petitioner as he could not prove the fact that he worked under Railway Inspector (Renewal) Bhopal in the year 1977.

While passing the impugned order, Central Administrative Tribunal perused the departmental enquiry report, order of Appellate Authority and order of Revisional Authority passed against the petitioner and has rightly observed that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the petitioner used a fake Casual Labour Card for obtaining the employment thereby was rightly removed from the services. We observe from record that confusion seems to have been created on the basis of letter dated 15.10.1986 regarding the actual number of Casual Labour Card. However, there being ample evidence on record that the card relied upon by the petitioner was never issued, the letter is of no substance. If a job is given on the condition of verification of Casual Labour Card, petitioner is not entitled to continue the job in case the card was found to be fake at a subsequent stage.

Petitioner utterly failed in discharging to lead evidence to establish that he was in the service of Railways in the year 1977 and Casual Labour Card issued to him, if any, was a genuine one. We find no discrepancy in the impugned order. Petition being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No. costs.