Rajneesh Kumar Singh vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 4 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD Order Sheet Item no.: 4 O.A./1267/2026 (ALLAHABAD) [ REMOVAL FROM SERVICE ] Court No.: 3 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 04/11/2026 RAJNEESH KUMAR SINGH Vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri Vibhu Rai For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Anil Kumar, Order of The Tribunal Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present. Learned counsel for the respondents objected that Respondent No. 1 should be impleaded as the Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, and that the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, is not a necessary party. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the array of parties during the course of the day, in open Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was working as Chief Parcel Supervisor and was involved in a criminal case, namely, Special Case No. 02/2016, pending before the CBI Court (Anti-Corruption), in which he was convicted vide judgment dated 22.12.2025. It is further submitted that, upon receiving information regarding the applicant's conviction, the respondents passed the order dated 27.01.2026, thereby removing the applicant from service with immediate effect by invoking Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order of removal from service was subsequently challenged before the higher Court, wherein an interim order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the applicant was passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2026 vide order dated 07.07.2026. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application seeking permission to rejoin his duties. Learned counsel for the applicant, while placing reliance upon Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, submitted that the said provision contemplates the imposition of a penalty upon a railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without affording the applicant an opportunity to show cause, and that the same is, therefore, in violation of Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Matter requires for consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents is directeds to seek instruction and apprise this Court by way of short counter affidavit within a period of three months. Till such time respondents are restrain to give effect to the order dated 27.01.2026. List the matter on 16.12.2026.

Ms Manju Pandey Member (A) Rajnish Kumar Rai Member (J) Vivek Rawat ( )