U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala

¶1

1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30629-DB

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5371 of 2025

¶5

Petitioner :- U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Shakuntala Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Kumar Dwivedi

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri S.B. Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India and Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi for Union of India.

¶8

The present writ petition filed by the Union of India has assailed the judgement/order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in O.A. No. 332/00135/2014 on 18.9.2004, whereby the punishment awarded against the delinquent employee has been set aside by the Tribunal and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed has been directed to be read as that of compulsory retirement.

¶9

The O.A. instituted by the delinquent employee who having been treated as absent from duty was proceeded against and removed from service.

¶10

The order of removal appears to have been passed on 31.10.2008 and the same was not communicated to the delinquent employee who prior to the said date was undergoing medical treated for cancer. The delinquent employee died during treatment and it is only thereafter when the wife of the delinquent employee instituted an O.A. No. 249/2012 for payment of pensionery benefits,

¶11

2

¶12

the knowledge of the order of removal from service was gathered from the departmental authorities as a result of which the said O.A. was disposed of giving liberty to the respondent herein (wife) for instituting a fresh O.A. against the order of removal from service.

¶13

It is in this manner that the second O.A. No. 332/00135/2014 was filed before the Tribunal by the sole respondent. After exchange of pleadings, the O.A. has come to be decided by means of the judgment/order dated 18.9.2024 impugned here in this writ petition.

¶14

We have carefully gone through the judgement passed by the Tribunal.

¶15

It is true that the Tribunal has dominantly proceeded on equitable considerations but it is equally true that the order of removal from service, which was sent through registered post at the permanent address of the delinquent employee, was not proved to have been served.

¶16

The revisional authority has also failed to consider the vital aspect of the matter regarding the delinquent employee suffering from cancer and he being under medical treatment while the unauthorised absence was taken note of by the departmental authorities and the departmental proceedings were set up. The service of the said order except by sending through registered post, was not ascertained as to when the same was served or refused to be accepted.

¶17

3

¶18

The punishment of removal from service was held to be shockingly disproportionate in a circumstance where the delinquent employee was suffering from cancer and was under treatment. The disciplinary proceedings instituted against him had culminated into an order of removal from service on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry too.

¶19

All these anomalies have duly been addressed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgement and it is on due consideration of the entirety of the material that the Tribunal has opined the punishment to be read as a punishment of compulsory retirement leaving scope for the pensionary benefits to be claimed by the dependents/legal heirs viz. widow.

¶20

Having considered the impugned judgement from all the relevant consideration and looking to the sufferings of the family, we do not find it a case where extraordinary jurisidction of this Court is warranted to be exercised in a case of such an extreme hardship.

¶21

Accordingly we decline to entertain the writ petition for the reasons recorded in the judgement passed by the Tribunal and for what has been observed hereinabove.

¶22

Learned counsel for Union of India at this stage has prayed that for compliance of the judgement impugned, three months further time be granted to the authorities so that there is no situation of non-compliance.

¶23

We, therefore, modify the operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the judgement/order dated 18.9.2024 shall be implemented

¶24

4

¶25

by the Union of India within a further period of three months from today.

¶26

The writ petition, with the aforesaid modification, is hereby dismissed.

¶27

(Rajeev Singh, J.) (A R Masoodi, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Fahim/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others v. Smt. Shakuntala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others v. Smt. Shakuntala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz the Complainant of Fir NO.96/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others vs Amit Kumar and 2 Others

Sunita Nishad and Another Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Female Constable Komal Sharma, Pno No. 212431395 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Manish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Environment Climate Change Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others