Facts
The applicant was appointed as a Trainee Fitter (Technician Grade-III) on 07.11.2012 on compassionate grounds by the Western Railway, Dahod
Source reference: p. 2The appointment was subject to a three-year training period and a signed Deed of Indemnity
Source reference: p. 5, 8The applicant was repeatedly absent from training, specifically for 173 days in 2012-13 and 241 days in 2013-14
Source reference: p. 8After a prior removal and reinstatement on appeal in 2014, the applicant again remained unauthorizedly absent for 142 days between 24.03.2014 and 12.08.2014
Source reference: p. 5A major penalty charge sheet was issued on 10.09.2014
Source reference: p. 2, 8Following an inquiry and a show-cause notice dated 08.07.2016, the respondents cancelled the applicant's training via order dated 30.07.2016
Source reference: p. 2, 6The applicant challenged this cancellation and the subsequent rejection of his appeal dated 17.03.2017
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the applicant’s training due to unauthorized absence was legally sustainable under the service agreement and railway rules
Source reference: p. 6, 82. Whether the order of cancellation was issued by a competent authority
Source reference: p. 3, 7Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for the adjudication of the dispute
Source reference: p. 2It relied on the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. I, Chapter 3, specifically Para 301, which stipulates that the services of an apprentice are liable for termination on one week's notice as per the service agreement
Source reference: p. 6, 8Additionally, the court applied the contractual obligations found in the Deed of Indemnity, requiring completion of training within a stipulated three-year period
Source reference: p. 5, 8Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to fulfill the primary condition of his engagement, which was the completion of a three-year training period
Source reference: p. 8The record established a consistent pattern of unauthorized absence spanning several years (173 days, 241 days, and 142 days respectively), which the applicant did not effectively deny
Source reference: p. 8The court noted that adequate procedural fairness was afforded: a formal inquiry was conducted, the applicant was given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and a show-cause notice was issued before the final order
Source reference: p. 5, 8Regarding competency, the respondents clarified that while the Assistant Mechanical Engineer issued certain communications, the actual cancellation order was passed by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, who is competent to appoint and terminate Group C employees
Source reference: p. 7The applicant's plea regarding medical grounds (lumbago) was rejected as he failed to provide authentic documentation during the inquiry or show-cause stage to justify the extended periods of absence
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant’s repeated unauthorized absences and failure to complete training within the stipulated time justified the termination of the apprenticeship
The court answered that the impugned decision did not suffer from legal infirmities and was passed by a competent authority
Source reference: p. 9The O.A. was dismissed, and the orders dated 30.07.2016 and 17.03.2017 were upheld. No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Manthan R ShahvsM/o Railways
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in