Judgment 1. The Court is little surprised this appeal has been filed at all. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the respondent Amar Chand as it stood on the record of the railway establishment was that while posted as a second fire man he shunted a railway engine in the absence of the driver. There was a departmental enquiry. The departmental enquiry went into the entire aspect of the fault or the lapses on which a charge stood against the respondent. After a full-fledged departmental enquiry the respondent was found not guilty. It is on record that completely oblivious to the merits of the enquiry, which had found him not guilty, the disciplinary authority without assigning any reason disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and passed an order as a punishment for the removal of the respondent from the service. This order of punishment was passed on 20 December, 1965. 3. The respondent Amar Chand filed a suit before a Munsif. While these proceedings were pending before the District Court, in the meantime, the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1976 came into operation. The proceedings stood transferred from the District Court to the Tribunal and this is the case, which was registered as T.A. no. 19 of 1991: Amar Chand vs. Union of India & Ors. 4. There are certain other aspects, which may be noticed but are otherwise irrelevant while the matter was pending before the Tribunal. At one stage, the proceedings were dismissed for default and as the Tribunal had declined to restore the proceedings the respondent had filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. In reference to this, the Tribunal itself records that it met with no success. Nevertheless, subsequently, the Tribunal took the matter up on merits. 5. The Tribunal upon hearing the parties and having examined the record of the railway establishment came to the conclusion that on the basis of the injunction which had been granted by the Courts below, the respondent Amar Chand had continued in service and the railway establishment accepted him as an employee in service, took work from him and evaluated his record even to the extent that finding him efficient granted him promotion on four occasions. 6. 6. Thus, one thing is clear that whatever may be the worth of the order of dismissal, an aspect to which this Court will revert to later, it did not reflect on the efficiency of the respondent, on the integrity of the respondent or for that matter have any bearing that he was an employee who was not worthy to be in the employ of the railway establishment. The employee is a civil servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. His integrity and his efficiency is intact and was never in issue. 7. May be because of some bureaucratic intricacies the establishment did not rationalise in an exercise in a long 35 year old pending matter where the record was not co-ordinated for compatibility and take into account the exoneration in the departmental enquiry from the charges of misdemeanour which renders the order of removal from service a contradiction and an administrative injustice. The matter should have been left at that. At the fag end of his service, the railway establishment is yet challenging the judgment of the Tribunal which upheld the departmental inquiry. The charges against the respondent Amar Chand have failed. As a second man on the railway engine, in the absence of the driver, perhaps it was not without cause that he had shunted the engine. This was a too small a matter to be chased for so long a time and that also after the employee has been found efficient on four occasions to be given promotion. 8. This petition was ill-advised and it is, accordingly, dismissed.