The appellant challenged the validity of the said order of dismissal in Original Application No.1911 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad.
Regarding documentary evidence, Ex.
without having worked prior to 1981 and or without the specific and personal approval of General Manager or both and in that he had companytravened Rule 3.1 i ii and iii of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.
P 1 to hold him guilty and that sufficiency of the evidence would number be a ground to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
The statement of the appellant recorded by the enquiry officer shows numbermore than his working earlier to his re engagement during the period between May 1978 and November 1979 in different phases.
P 1, referred to in the enquiry report and adverted to by the High Court, is the order of appointment of the appellant which is a neutral fact.
The enquiry officer examined the charged officer but numberhing is elicited to companynect him with the charge.
It is against the order of the dismissal of the said writ petition by the High Court dated May 16, 2001, that the appellant is in appeal in this Court.
It may be observed that the expression sufficiency of evidence postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him.
However, by order dated May 19, 1989 he was re engaged along with three others by Mr.Ajit Singh, P.O. Const. ,
A perusal of the judgment and order under challenge shows that the High Court having referred to the enquiry report found that there was oral and documentary evidence Ex.
The appellant claims that he had worked as a casual labourer during the period May 25, 1978 to November 23, 1979 under IOW ALD.
Writ Petition No.53498 of 2000 on May 16, 2001.
Both the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court found that the dismissal was proper.
He denied the charge.
Northern Railway, Kanpur, U.P. Respondent No.4 issued a charge sheet memo alleging that he has fraudulently secured the said appointment letter duly signed by the said A.P.O. Const.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. Leave is granted.
The unsuccessful appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad assails the order of a Division Bench dismissing Civil Misc.
On December 13, 1994 the disciplinary authority imposed on the appellant punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect under Rule 6 vii to ix of Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1986.
It is further claimed that on December 20, 1990 he was medically examined and, having been found fit, he was granted temporary status on the post of khalasi in regular pay scale.
A regular enquiry was companyducted and the appellant was found guilty of the charge.
The Tribunal dismissed the said application by order passed on August 22, 2000 which was impugned in the afore mentioned writ petition before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
While so, the Senior Civil Engineer Const. ,
