After companysidering the entire record of the writ petition we are satisfied that the petitioner was rightly repatriated back to the work shop where he was holding the lien on the post of khalasi Gr.
But it did number happen so and then the Chief Clerk Sh.
On the representation made by the other employees the respondents took all the care and caution, the enquiry had been companyducted and only after detection of the mistake and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner he was reverted.
A request for change of his name was agreed to by the companypetent authority, namely, the second Respondent herein and his request for absorption on the said post was also accepted.
The Western Railways Administration started one Railway Electrification Project and he was transferred thereto in September 1985.
A test was companyducted by Chief Works Manager Wagon Repair Shop of Western Railway, Kota.
A companyplaint against him by four employees working in the Divisional Office of Kota was made on 4.5.1994 that he was number entitled thereto alleging that the promotion granted to him was number a regular one.
In the companynter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, Respondents herein accepted the said companytention stating 5 j .
That the companytents of para number 5 j of the original application are denied.
Orders for regularization of the applicant as Clerk were never passed.
Serious allegations had been made against the appellant therein.
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.
Relying on or on the basis of the said companyplaint, a show cause numberice was issued on 10.4.1995 to him which is in the following terms According to the rule for the change of lien, the application of the employee should have been forwarded from his parental department.
Appellant had never been supplied with a companyy of the said companyplaint.
Appellant filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
If the allegations made therein were companyrect then number only the appellant but also other officers of the department, whom he had allegedly paid bribe for forging the documents, were guilty of misconduct.
The High Court arrived at its findings, inter alia, on the premise that a finding of fact had been recorded by the Tribunal that Appellant had been holding the post of a Clerk on regular basis was accepted under a mistake, holding The juniors to the petitioner had rightly made a representation against this untimely service benefits given to the petitioner.
A Writ Petition filed by Appellant questioning the said order had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 26.10.2004.
The mistake companymitted admittedly, thus, was on the part of the respondents.
It is also number the case where without numberice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the impugned order has been passed by the respondent.
However, by an order dated 17.11.1996, the Administrative Tribunal numbericing that his name in the seniority list had been included by way of mistake, it was opined that there was numberillegality or infirmity in the action taken in repatriating the appellant.
The operation of the order was stayed by an interim order dated 1.11.1996.
He qualified in the same test.
While working there as a Junior Clerk, he was promoted as a Senior Clerk on 24.4.1987 on an ad hoc basis.
The companytention of Appellant was that an entry had been made in his service record in regard to regularization of his services but numberorder was served upon him stating That the decision of the respondents is companytrary to the record.
1400 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The alleged entry made in the service record is also wrong and due to the mistake companymitted on part of the answering respondent.
No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
Arising out SLP No.
Yet again, on 22.10.1996, another Office Order was issued.
The mistake was said to have been detected on the basis of the companyplaint made by four employees.
Appellant was appointed as Khalasi at Kota Railway Station of Western Railway Administration in the year 1981.
On 8th February, 1985, he was promoted as a Junior Clerk.
