TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onducted by Chief Works Manager (Wagon Repair Shop) of Western Railway, Kota. He qualified in the same test. The Western Railways Administration started one Railway Electrification Project and he was transferred thereto in September 1985. While working there as a Junior Clerk, he was promoted as a Senior Clerk on 24.4.1987 on an ad hoc basis. On completion of the project, he was repatriated to his original office. Although he was posted in the office of the Kota Railway Station of Western Railway Administration, he was kept in the said workshop. A request for change of his name was agreed to by the competent authority, namely, the second Respondent herein and his request for absorption on the said post was also accepted. A complaint agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n how the rule framed separately for Sh. Shekhar Ghosh. Therefore, it is requested that this forgery case of Sh. Shekhar Ghosh be got enquired into immediately and disciplinary action be initiated against the then Head Clerk who mislead the administration and having taken bribe in a fraudulent manner Sh. Shekhar Ghosh made a clerk from Khalasi. He filed his reply to the show cause requesting that he should be treated to be a selected Clerk `whose lien has been changed from WRS to Division' so that his legitimate dues are saved. By an order dated 18.10.1996, he was repatriated to his original place of work i.e. the office of the Chief Manager of Factory, Goods Compartment Repairing Factory, Kota. Yet again, on 22.10.1996, anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op where he was holding the lien on the post of khalasi (Gr.II). The contention of Appellant was that an entry had been made in his service record in regard to regularization of his services but no order was served upon him stating:- That the decision of the respondents is contrary to the record. In the service record of the applicant it has been verified by the competent authority that applicant is holding the post of Junior Clerk in substantive capacity. In the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal, Respondents herein accepted the said contention stating:- 5(j). That the contents of para no. 5(j) of the original application are denied. Orders for regularization of the applicant as Clerk were never passed. The alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st decisional hearing was not called for as the disciplinary authority had already made up its mind before giving an opportunity of hearing. Such a post-decisional hearing in a case of this nature is not contemplated in law. The result of such hearing was a foregone conclusion. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 686, this Court opined:- ...It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose. [See also V.C. Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant, 2006 (6) SCALE 66]. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that there is some shift in the concept of principles of natural justice which has been noticed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f service rendered by him from 1964 to 1972 was intended to be withdrawn and promotion orders were to be cancelled as having been passed on account of mistake, the respondents ought to have first given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant having earned two promotions after having passed the trade tests, could not have been legally reverted two steps below and brought back to the post of Khalasi without being informed that the period of service rendered by him from 1964 to 1972 could not be counted towards his seniority and, therefore, the promotion orders would be cancelled. In a situation of this nature, it was not open to the respondents to have made up their mind unilaterally on facts which could have been shown by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is also not a case where a mistake was apparent on the face of the records and, thus, compliance of the principles of natural justice would not have made any difference as was in the case of Smt. Ratna Sen nee Roy v. The State of West Bengal Ors. [1995 (1) Cal. LT 462]. Requirements to comply with the principles of natural justice would, therefore, vary from case to case. If upon giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected employee, it is possible to arrive at a different finding, the principles of natural justice must be complied with. We may notice that recently in Union of It is now trite that if a mistake is committed in passing an administrative order, the same may be rectified. Rectification of a mistake, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
