RAKESH KUMAR MEENA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9875/2023 RAKESH KUMAR MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Shukla, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghwendra Tiwari, SPC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGEMENT (ORAL) % 28.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Loco Pilot in the Eastern Northern Railway, was issued a charge sheet on 6 October 2010, proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. 2. The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner had unauthorizedly remained absent from service for a period of 50 days. 3. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet on 13 October 2010. His submission was that he had remained absent owing to the illness of his wife and children. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU W.P.(C) 9875/2023 Page 1 of 4 KALRA Signing Date:12.02.2025 10:52:54 4. Admittedly, without holding any enquiry against the petitioner, the respondent proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service by order dated 11 November 2010. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 13 January 2011 and a revision preferred against the said order was dismissed on 8 June 2011. 5. All these orders were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 3149/2015. 6. Among the submissions canvassed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was the submission that the orders passed against him were in violation of the Rules and Regulations as well as the principles of natural justice as no enquiry had been held before passing the order. 7. The Tribunal has rejected the submission, reasoning thus: “7. The necessity to conduct the in