Remanded

N.Ravi Kumar, v. Union of India, rep.by the General Manager

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023WP/5455/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order remanding a dismissal case to the Appellate Authority. The Court held that the CAT erred in not remanding to the Revisional Authority, the superior authority, and directed remand with consideration of the petitioner's criminal acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions set aside; matters remanded to the Revisional Authority to pass appropriate orders within two months while considering the petitioner's criminal acquittal.

N.Ravi Kumar, Vs Union of India, rep.by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 5361 AND 5455 OF 2012

¶8

W.P.NO: 5361 OF 2012

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.Sampath Kumar, S/o. M.Narsarah, aged 44 years, Occ: Ex.Loco pilot Goods, O/o. Chief Crew Controller, Kacheguda Siation, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Kacheguda R:/o.H.No.12- 1-50g18162l, Flat No.74, Sripuri- colony, Near [t4oula-ali Railway Quarters, Lalapet P.O.Hyderabad500040.

¶11

...PET|T|ONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

¶14

Chief Operations fvlanager,South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad

¶15

The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad, Division, South Central Railway,Hyderabad Bhavan SeCunderabad

¶16

The Senior Divisonal Mechanical Engineer, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad

¶17

The Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad

¶18

The Additional Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Hyderabad Division, South Cenkal Railway, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.

¶19

The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONOENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanceq stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a wflt order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari by calling for the order daled 6.1.2012 in OA.No.33'l of 2009 on the fite of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and declare that the direction given to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order with reference to the appeal memo dated 23.4.2007 as illegal, unconstitutional and accordingly set

¶22

¶23

aside the said^portion of the order with^{a directionto provide other consequential} benefits to the^petitioner based on^{the order of allowingthe said O.A. settingaside} the^quashing of the impugned orders^{of penalty.}

¶24

LA. NO:2OF 2012^{(WPMP. NO:} 6813^{OF 20 12}

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circtlmstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} suspend the order daled 6.1.2012^{in OA.No.331of 2009 on the file of the Central} Administrative Trrbunal, Hyderabad^{Benchto the extent of the directiongiven to} the disciplinary authority to^pass fresh^{order with referenceto the appealmemo} daled 23.4.2oo7^.

¶26

LA. NO: 1OF 2017^{(WPMP. NO: 10301 OF 2017}

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circLrmstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support^of the^{petition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to grant} expeditious hearing of the^{Writ PetitionNo. 5361 of 2O12 in the interest of justice}

¶28

W.P.NO: 5455 OF 2012

¶29

Between:

¶30

N.Ravi Kumar, S/o. N.Raja Rathnam, Ex.Assistant^{Loco Pilot (Goods),O/o} Chief Crew Controller,^{KabhegudaStationHyderabadDivision, South Central} Railway, Kacheguda Rl/o.H.No.3/315,^{Tapovanam, Ananthapur.}

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

Union of lndia, rep.^{by the General Manager, South Central Railway,Rail} Nilavam, Secunderabad.

¶34

Chi6f Operations Manager,^{South Central Railway, RailNilayam,} Secunderabad.

¶35

The Additional Divisional^{Railway Manager, Hyderabad, Division,South} Central Railway, Hyderabad^{Bhavan, Secunderabad.}

¶36

The Senior Divisonal^{MechanicalEngineer, HyderabadDivision, South} Central Railway, Hyderabad^{Bhavan, SecunderaQqd.}

¶37

The Divisional Mihanical^{Engineer, Hyderabad Division, South Central} Railway, Hyderabad Bhavan,^{Secunderabad.}

¶38

The Additidnal Divisional^{Mechanical Engineer, Hyderabad Division, South} Central Railway, Hyderabad^{Bhavan, Securderabad}

¶39

The Regiskar, ThsCenkal Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,} Hyderabad.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated rn the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^particularly one in the nature^of certiorari by calling for the order dated 06.01.2012ⁱⁿ OA.No.333^{of 2009on the} file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench^and declare^{that the} direction given to the disciplinary authority lo^{pass a} fresh order^{with referenceto} the representation dated 26.4.2007 as illegal, unconstitutional^{and accordingly set} aside the said^portion of the order with a direction to^{provide other consequential} benefits to the petitioner based on the order of allowing the^{said O.A- setting aside} the quashing of the impugned orders of^penalty.

¶42

N :2 OF 2012 PMP. NO: 6913 OF 2012

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praylng thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} suspend the order daled 6.1 .2012 in OA.No.333 of²⁰⁰⁹ on^{the file of the Central} Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench to the extent of the^{direction givento} the disciplinary authority to^pass fresh order^{with referenceto the representation} dated 26.4.2007 .

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.K.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l TO 6:^M/s. ANJALI^{AGARWAL, SC FOR SCR} Counsel for the Respondent No.7: -

¶45

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶47

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO wRIr PET_ITIQ_N_ Lo,9361_qt ?o12

¶49

¶50

WRIT PETITION No.5455 of 2Ol2

¶51

COMMON ORDER: tt,r Ilot bl? sn.lus^trc( .1|,rrrrlrrJ tit,,t,r:^it(it,ltl

¶52

Since thc issuc involved in both these Wr'. [)etrtions is one .rnd the samc, both the Writ Petitions are drsp{)scd of bl/ this (lom mon Orcicr

¶53

Writ Petition No.536 1 of 2012 is filcd ae51ri*,ccl b-l the orders passcd by the Central Admirristra t.ivr' Tribur-ral, Hvderabad Bcnch, ilvderabad (hercinaftcr rcfcrrt'cl to as "CAT") rn O.A.No.33 I of 2O09 dt.06.01.20I2 and Writ Pc'titron No.5455 of 2OI2 is fited aggrieved by the orders passed by the CAT in 0.A.No.333 of 2OO9 dt.06.01.2012

¶54

HczLrd Sri K.R.l(.V. Prasad, lcarned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Agarw-al, learned Standing Counsel ftrr thc respondcnts.

¶55

For the sake of convenience, [hc facts in W. P. iio.535 ] of 2012 are hereunder ciiscussed

¶56

¶57

ffi

¶58

) \t. r ll{(..1 ir)lrr(\rr I ' J.r \ l' ,i i:i l, : ,t^<

¶59

It has been contendect by thc^{pctitioner tha[ he \ as} working as Loco Prlot (Coods) and it rvas alleged b1^the Disciplinarl, Authority that on 30.09.2006, rvhile tl-rc^petitioner was working on UP Nizamabad goods trairr. it rvas colltdcd^u tth the stationary goods train standing on UP main line at AIer Station, Secunderabad Division of South Central Railu'ays and the Disciplinary Authority has initiated disciplinary^proceedings by issuing a charge memo on 05.01.2007 allcgir-rg that^the petitioner was responsible for the said accident. The^petitioner has denied the said charge and after conducting a detailed enquiry zrnd for proven misconduct, the Disciplinary^Authority has imposed a major penalty of dismissal from^servicevide order dt.09.05.2OO7 . Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority was pleased to reject the appeal vide order^dt. 22.11.2OO7 . Thereafter, the petitioner' has^preferred a^revision before the Revisional Authority and the^{Revisional Authority} was pleased to confirm the said punishment while^dismissing the revision vide order dt.21.05.2008. Aggrieved by the^said orders, the petitioner has approached thc CAT by filing^O.A. No.33 I of 2OO9 and the Tribunal^vide order^{dt.O6.01.2O12was} pleased to set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as oirfirmed by the Appellate Authority^and

¶60

\h\ ,\ i.{nnr(nr^{()r!cr\l' jl61 rj l}

¶61

¶62

Revisionzrl Authority \r,ith a specilic finding thr.rt the Appellate Authorit-r'and Revisional Authority \vere not lairl.y dealt u,'ith the issues rarsed b1, the petitioner and orders refloct that there $.as total non application of mind and they $,er(' not speaking orders and the sarne /ere contrarv to the principles of natural justice. Hou,ever, the Tribunal instead of directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, has rcmandcd the matter to the Appellate AuthoritJ' to re examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the grounds raiscd b.r. the petitioncr in his appeal Memo dt.23.O4.2007 . Onl1, to rhe extenI of remanding the matter to the Appel]ate Authoritv anci not directing the reinstatement of the petitioner i;.rto service, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶63

The learned counsel for the petitioner had r:ontended that the Revisional Authority has also colfirmed thc orders passed by the Disciplinaqr Authority and if the matter is remanded to the lorver authority than that of Revisional Authority, then the lower Appellate Aurhotity cannot take contrary view than what has already been taken by the superior authority i.e. Revisional Authority.

¶64

Lczrrncd counsel for [he petitioner had furtl-rer contendcd that il the matter is remanded to the respondents, be it

¶65

--1

¶66

¶67

Appellate Authorit.v or Revisional^{Authority, it amounts to post} decision he aring ancl rt hen once^{the Appellate Authorit-r' and} Revisional Authority has confirmcd the^{order of dismissal as} imposed by the disciplinary authority, no^{useful purpose rvould} be served as the Appellate Authoritv^{as u'cll as th(' Rcvisiorlal} Authority have already confirmed the^{order passcdbrthe} disciplinary authority.

¶68

B. Learned Counsel for the^{petitioner had furtl'rcr contctlded} that the petitioner^{was also} tried^{in a criminalcase lor the szrme} set of allegations in C.C. No.275^{of 2009 on the hle of lI} Metropolitan Magistrate for^{Railways,and the pctitroner\as} acquitted of the said criminal^{charge vide order dt 27 06 201 1 '} This fact was totally^{ignored by the respondents. As per the} Railway Board instructions^{dt.O6. 07 .1995 and also the larv laid} down by the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court in G,M. Tank Vs' State of} Gujarat & otherst ,^{as the petitioner was acquittedin a} crimtnal case,^{the dismissal ordersoughtto have been set aside} by the Tribunal.^{Therefore,appropriate orders be passedin the} Writ Petition by setting^{aside the order ofdismissaland} directing the^{respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service} with aI consequential^{benefits as already the dismissal orders}

¶69

'lzoooys^sccaa6

¶70

,\ks.J & l,lttN. J (_Lxnfl,f ()rdcr \ t, , i t(,t oltall] & 5t5i ot]l l:

¶71

\vere sct asidc bY the Tribunal ln O.A.Ncr.331 of 2OO9 dr.O6 0l..2Ot2

¶72

Learneci Standing Counsel for the respondents had contendc'cl tl-rar rhe Tribunal u,as justified in allou,ing the O.A. b-r' settins asidc the order of the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed b1. the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authoritr and rightll' remanded the matter to the Appellate Authoritr', the Appellate Authority would consider the same and p?rss appropriate orders in accordance ,"vith larv.

¶73

Lcarned Standing Counsel appearing for thc respondents had furthcr contcnded that in pursuance of the orders passecl by the CAT in O.A. ir,to.33 I of 2009 dt.06.01.2012, the Appeitate Authority has also issued a notice giving personal hearing to the peritione r on O2.O3.2O I 2 but instead of appearing before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has chosr:n to file the present Writ Petition and obtained stay of impugned order and becausc of the sarne, the Appellate Authority could not consider the case of the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶74

I l. This Court r-raving considered the rival conte,tions made by the respecti\rc parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal u,as justilied ln setting asid e the order of dismissat

¶75

¶76

¶77

and the Tribunal^{is not the Appellate Authority'as the Tribur-ral} cannor sit over^{the decisionof Disciplinary Authoritr', Appcllatc} Authorirv zLnd^{RevisionalAuthority,the Tribunal has rightl-r} remanded the^{matter tothe respondents Hou'ever' the} Tribunal ought^{to have remanded the matterto the Rerrisional} Authority,^ln'ho is^{superior authoritythan that ol Appcllatc} Authority.^{The Tribunalwas not justified in remandingthc} matter to the^{Appellate Authority when once the Revisional} Authoritv^{has alreadltaken a decision to confirm thc orderol} the Appellate^{Authority, the AppellateAutl.roritycannot takc} any dilferent^{view from that of its superior authority'}

¶78

Therefore,^{the ends of justice u'ouldbe met' if the cascts} remarded^{to the Revisional Authorityto examine the case of the} petitioner and that^{the Revisional Authoritysha1l also take into} account the^{fact that the petitionerwas acquitted of the said} criminal charge^{by a competentCriminalCourt in C C' No'275} of 2009^{d,t.27.06.2011and also in terms of the Railway Board} letter dt.o6.0^{7 .lgg5 and also taking into accountthe judgment} renderedbytheHonbleSupremeCourtinG'M'Tank(supra)

¶79

)

¶80

¶81

\ !&RR\ ( ' 1Ir' ' !:.i,r \t [) \ . . l I^r l ' .r r r i) f l O l l

¶82

With the^{abovc obscrvertions,both these Wnl Petitlons are} disposed of^{setting aside both theimpugned orders} dt.O6.O^{| .2012 in O.A. Nos.33l ol 2OO9 and 333 ol 2OO9 on the} lile ol-^{r-he CentralAdn'rirristratrve Tribunal'HvcierabadBench'} Hlderabad^{and both thematters are rematrdedtothe} Revisional^{Authority for lreshconsideratiorr andpass} approprratc^{ordcrs in erccordanceil'ith larv as cx;)editlouslyas} possible^{preferablvw'iLhin a period of tv"'o months lrom the date} of receipt^{ol copv of this order' No costs'}

¶83

As tt sequcl,^{misccllzrneous applications per: ding if any in} this Writ l)ctition.^{shall srand closcd'}

¶84

SD/. C. PRAVEEN^KUMAR ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -D SECTIdN^OFFICER

¶85

To 1. The General^{Manager,Unlonof lndia, South Central Rai|way, Rail Nilayam'} Secunderabad.

¶86

1. fii,;i5;;;;[;".^{Ivtanaser,South central Railwav' Rail Nilavam'}

¶87

J, ?f;:'X5.:[f,i'rl^{rivisionalRailwavManaser, Hvderabad'Division' south} 4 gi:'t'lm'Hfl [*:{'ui:s,g''9fu ,?::Ylfl i],i"?3fl adDivision,south c"ir-rr niit"v,^{HyderabadBhavan' Secunderaoao.'.}

¶88

5 The Divisional^{MechanicalEtidfi;;;"iyd*abud Di'i"ion' South Central-}

¶89

5 b Tfi l['Jd,l#i;'311S'5f"1fi^{!;i"'"',Hnfl,iif,:rr,n*rabadDivision'south} d;Aj R';i il;v'^{Hvo eraoadBnavan' Secunderabed'.}

¶90

7 i#hAt?;;:'irre'Centrat^{Ai;;i#'ti;;tribunal'Hvderabad Bench'}

¶91

7 Hvderabad.

¶92

o'P6Hcfoeu cr

¶93

8I B* :: n nx l[,f^{x'^81'.ffiA1937if}

¶94

1 0. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶95

PSK LS

I I I

I I {

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410912023

COMMON ORDER

11 rtJ 1t8
\l

WP.Nos.5361^{AND 5455 of 2012}

¶105

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITIONS} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶106

CePt'D 1't^\o e.3

N.Ravi Kumar, v. Union of India, rep.by the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ravi Kumar, v. Union of India, rep.by the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Superintendent of Police Vs B. Mallikarjuna Rao

A. Venkat Ram Vs T.S. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

A. Venkat Ram Vs T.S. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

R.Raju Naik,S/o.K.Kurma Naik Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes,Hyderabad

Union of India Vs G. Yesumani

The General Manager Vs Md.Mansoor Ahmed