Allowed

Union of India, v. Sk. Abdul Salam

Telangana HC15 Oct 2014WP/18072/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Union of India's Writ Petition challenging an CAT decision that set aside a railway employee's removal. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that Paras 704/705 of the Vigilance Manual are procedural, not substantive. Consequently, the CAT's order was set aside, and liberty was granted to the employee to file a revision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. Liberty is granted to the respondent to file a revision within one month. Status quo ante is maint

Union of India, Vs Sk. Abdul Salam — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU and

¶2

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 18072 OF 2003

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶6

This Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India, challenging the order dated 25.03.2003 in O.A. No.301 of 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶7

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent inspite of service.

¶8

3. The respondent filed the aforesaid Original Application challenging the order dated 13.12.1999 passed by the third petitioner-disciplinary authority imposing punishment of removal from service on him, as confirmed by the first petitioner-appellate authority vide order dated 10.01.2001. On the ground that compliance of paras 704 and 705 of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual is held by this Court as mandatory, the Tribunal, vide the impugned order, allowed the Original Application setting aside the order dated 13.12.1999 passed by the third respondent as affirmed by the first respondent vide order dated 10.01.2001.

¶9

4. Learned standing counsel appearing for Railways placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & others v. G.Ratnam & others^[1] , wherein it is held thus: (para 24).

¶10

“On consideration of the foregoing facts and in the teeth of the legal aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the instructions contained in Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996 are procedural

¶11

in character and not of a substantive nature. The violation thereof, if any, by the investigating officer in conducting departmental trap cases would not ipso facto vitiate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents on the basis of the complaints submitted by the investigating officers to the Railway Authorities. The instructions as contemplated under Paras 704 and 705 of the Manual have been issued not for the information of the accused in the criminal proceedings or the delinquent in the departmental proceedings, but for the information and guidance of the investigating officers.”

¶12

In the above judgment, the common order of this Court dated 04.09.2002 in Writ Petition Nos.25111 of 2001 & batch, was set aside by the Apex Court. From the above judgment, it is clear that paras 704 and 705 of the Manual are procedural in character. The Tribunal, on the sole ground that the paras 704 and 705 of the Manual are mandatory, allowed the Original Application. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.

¶13

5. In the order dated 10.01.2001 of the appellate authority, liberty was given to the respondent herein to file a revision petition against the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the same. Though the period of 45 days is over, revision has not been filed by the respondent in view of pendency of the Writ Petition. Therefore, the respondent is at liberty to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority by filing revision before the appropriate authority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, status quo existing as on today shall be maintained.

¶14

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

_______________ K.C.BHANU, J

¶16

__________ ANIS,J.

¶17

15.10.2014. DRK

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU and

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS