Union Of India Represented By The vs Prasanth Kumar on 15 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8952 of 2009(S)


1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE SR.DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER,
3. THE SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER,

                        Vs



1. PRASANTH KUMAR,S/O.CHANDRADAS,EX-SENIOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS

                For Respondent  :SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY

 Dated :15/11/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                       BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                           W.P.(C) No.8952 of 2009
               ....................................................................
              Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

W.P.(C) is filed by the Railways challenging Ext.P7 order issued

by the CAT directing Railways to give VRS benefit and release the

respondent from service. We have heard Standing Counsel for the

Railways and counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Respondent while working as a Ticket Collector was involved

in financial irregularity and the Vigilance suggested the Railways to

take disciplinary action against him. Railways suspended the

respondent on 24.2.2005 and reinstated him after six months i.e. on

25.8.2005 without completing any enquiry or taking any action. Later

after joining the service, the respondent discontinued working in the

Railways from 1.12.2006 onwards. Even though the respondent left

his service without taking leave and unauthorised absence calls for

enquiry and punishment, the Railways did not bother to take any

action until 11.2.2008 when disciplinary action was proposed against

W.P.(C) 8952/09 2

the respondent. At this stage respondent contended that he had

submitted an application for VRS on 9.10.2006 and the same should

have been granted to him. According to the respondent, if VRS benefit

was granted to him, then there is no case for taking action for

unauthorised absence. Even though we do not find any justification

for the stand taken by the respondent which found acceptance with the

CAT, we feel respondent should be allowed to enjoy the benefit

granted by the CAT because indifference on the part of the Railways as

an employer is more than that showed by the respondent as an

employee of the Railways. In the first place, respondent was found

involved in financial irregularity in 2005 and though he was suspended

pending enquiry and disciplinary action, Railways could not complete

enquiry for reasons best known to them. Secondly, Railways did not

care to take notice or take any action for unauthorised absence of the

respondent for one year and two months. The height of inefficiency or

indifference on the part of the Railway officials supervising the

respondent is writ large on their performance or the lack of it as stated

above. In these circumstances, we cannot expect the Railways to

W.P.(C) 8952/09 3

conduct a proper enquiry or take action against the respondent within

a reasonable time. So much so, we decline to interfere with the order

of the CAT directing the Railways to release the respondent under

Voluntary Retirement Scheme. However, we make it clear that we do

not endorse the findings of the Tribunal in favour of the respondent

whose claim, in our view, lacks any bonafides. Railways is directed to

comply with the order of the CAT within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment so that it is relieved of a

disloyal employee at the earliest.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

BHABANI PRASAD RAY
Judge

pms