The Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench partly allowed the review application in Pramod Kumar Pandey v Union of India, quashing an order of removal from railway service after official records obtained under the Right to Information Act confirmed the applicant had worked 161 days as a part-time Mobile Booking Clerk.
Background of the Service Dispute and Initial Termination
Pramod Kumar Pandey was engaged as a part-time Mobile Booking Clerk with the North Eastern Railway at Lucknow. In 1993, the railway administration issued a departmental charge sheet alleging that he had submitted a fabricated certificate of working experience to secure his engagement. Although that initial charge sheet was later withdrawn during departmental appeal, the administration issued a fresh charge sheet on 25 March 1998 containing identical allegations. Following an ex-parte departmental inquiry, the competent authority passed an order removing him from service on 3 October 2006. Subsequent departmental appeals and revision petitions filed by the applicant were rejected on 14 February 2007 and 20 July 2007.
Aggrieved by the disciplinary actions, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench through Original Application No. 367 of 2007. On 18 September 2009, a Division Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the original application, noting that the applicant had failed to produce independent documentary evidence to substantiate his disputed working certificate, while observing that such records could have been obtained from the Personnel Department under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Discovery of Official Railway Records and Scope of Review Jurisdiction
Shortly after the dismissal of his original application, the applicant discovered critical official material through a Right to Information disclosure. In response to applications filed by a co-worker, the Divisional Commercial Manager of North Eastern Railway Lucknow had issued letter No. C/387/PIO/08/5 dated 25 April 2008 enclosing an official list of 85 part-time Mobile Booking Clerks who had worked prior to 17 November 1986. The applicant was listed at serial number 84 with 161 verified working days. Because this official departmental record had not been disclosed during the departmental inquiry and could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, the applicant filed a review application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In service jurisprudence, judicial review and review jurisdiction require strict adherence to procedural fairness. In matters involving administrative finality, similar principles are observed in consolidation disputes, as seen in Anwarulhaq v Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, where statutory authorities must evaluate verifiable evidentiary records rather than arbitrary assumptions.
Delhi High Court Precedent and Application of Article 14
The applicant also placed on record a significant ruling of the Delhi High Court dated 6 August 2010. The Delhi High Court had dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Railway administration (Writ Petition Nos. 307/2009, 11275/2009, 11636/2009, and 11653/2009), thereby upholding orders passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of four similarly situated Mobile Booking Clerks. The High Court observed that the burden of proving that certificates were forged rested squarely upon the Railways, particularly when the departmental list of 85 clerks remained uncontroverted. Consequent to the High Court ruling, the Divisional Railway Manager North Eastern Railway Lucknow reinstated all four employees on 28 December 2010 and issued posting orders on 5 May 2011.
The Tribunal observed that discriminating against the applicant while extending reinstatement to identically placed employees on the same official list would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Proper evaluation of handling official records and evidentiary proof ensures that departmental penalties are not sustained on disproved or unfounded allegations.
Final Decision and Relief Granted by the Tribunal
The Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench, with the judgment delivered by Judicial Member Alok Kumar Singh, held that the discovery of the official list of 85 Mobile Booking Clerks constituted new and important matter that was not within the knowledge of the applicant despite due diligence at the time of the original order. The Tribunal found that the charge of submitting a false working certificate was rendered baseless by the Railway administration's own admission in the official record.
Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the review application, reviewed and set aside its earlier judgment dated 18 September 2009, and quashed the removal order dated 3 October 2006 along with the appellate order dated 14 February 2007 and the revisionary order dated 20 July 2007. No order was made as to costs.