JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 3.12.2015 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner and upholding the orders of the disciplinary, appellate and the revisional authority. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Porter on 10.4.1989 and was promoted to the post of Senior Porter in the year 1992. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Cabin Master in the year 1997. On 21.7.2000, a notice was served on the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he did not furnish the details of his previous service, despite reminders. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner for not producing his past service record. The petitioner tendered the explanation and submitted that the past service record of the petitioner as a casual labourer was submitted to the screening committee at the time of his appointment in the year 1989 and since the petitioner had misplaced the documents, he could not produce them. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on an examination of the material on record, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner after holding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charge levelled against him. After the lapse of about five years from the preparation of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer, the vigilance department conducted an enquiry and forwarded a communication to the disciplinary authority in respect of its disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer. The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, vide communication dated 22.1.2010, informed the disciplinary authority that the disagreement note should be properly worded and it should not be reflected from the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority that action is taken by the disciplinary authority at the behest of the vigilance department. After the communication of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer was received by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.6.2010 asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner in view of its disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. After the communication of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer was received by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.6.2010 asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner in view of its disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner pointed out to the disciplinary authority, by his explanation, that the disagreement note travelled beyond the charge levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice as, according to the disagreement note, the uncle of the petitioner was one of the members on the Screening Committee and the screening was irregular. It was pointed out that such was not the charge levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice or the departmental enquiry, so also there was no reference to the letter of Ms. Mona Singh, dated 5.6.2000 in regard to the misconduct of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, by the order dated 11.11.2010, dismissed the petitioner from service without any compassionate allowance. The petitioner challenged the said order before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Similar was the fate of the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authority. All the orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 4. Shri Bambal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind to the enquiry report independently and has acted on the orders of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. It is submitted that it is apparent from the communication dated 22.1.2010 that the vigilance officer had directed the disciplinary authority, in what manner the disagreement note should be prepared and how it should be worded. It is submitted that by the communication dated 22.1.2010, the vigilance officer directed the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and prepare a note of disagreement as per his advise. It is submitted that since the disciplinary authority had not independently applied his mind to the enquiry report, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that since the disciplinary authority had not independently applied his mind to the enquiry report, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that though the enquiry report was prepared by the enquiry officer in 2002, the disciplinary authority served the note of disagreement on the petitioner, after nearly eight years, in 2010. It is submitted that the action of the disciplinary authority is tainted and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated on the basis of the order of the disciplinary authority. It is submitted that though the only charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner failed to submit the record in respect of his past service as a labourer despite reminders, in the disagreement note, it is observed by the disciplinary authority that screening and the selection of the petitioner was illegal, inasmuch as the uncle of the petitioner was a member of the screening committee. It is submitted that there is also no reference to the letter of Ms. Mona Singh, on which the disciplinary authority has relied while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, either in the show cause notice or the charge levelled against him, in the departmental enquiry. It is submitted that though these aspects were canvassed before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner, the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the same and has dismissed the Original Application without recording any finding on the said submissions. 5. Shri Lambat, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the action on the part of the respondents. It is submitted that it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment, reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100 (Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskaran with Union of India and others vs. G. Radhakrishnan) that a workman procuring employment in railways on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards, is liable to be terminated. It is submitted that, in the instant case, though the petitioner was asked by the respondents to submit the record in respect of his past service, the petitioner had not submitted the same, despite reminders. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority therefore rightly took a view that the petitioner would have submitted the record, if at all, the petitioner had worked as a casual labourer. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority therefore rightly took a view that the petitioner would have submitted the record, if at all, the petitioner had worked as a casual labourer. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, fairly admitted that in the show cause notice and the charge sheet there is no reference to the uncle of the petitioner, being a member on the screening committee and the illegal screening by the committee. 6. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the documents annexed to the petition, it appears that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, in the circumstances of the case. After his promotion, the petitioner was asked by the respondents to submit the documents in respect of his past service, but the petitioner failed to submit the same on the ground that the documents were misplaced. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2000. The only charge in the departmental enquiry was that the petitioner had not submitted the documents in respect of his past service, despite reminders. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted the documents before the screening committee and the copies of the documents could not be traced. After considering the evidence tendered by the respondents in support of the charge, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not guilty. Though the enquiry report was prepared by the enquiry officer in the year 2002, no action was taken by the respondents in the matter till the year 2010, when the disciplinary authority served the disagreement note on the petitioner on 25.6.2010, in pursuance of the communication served by the vigilance department on the disciplinary authority on 22.1.2010. The contents of the communication of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer dated 22.1.2010 are shocking. By this communication, the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer advised the disciplinary authority as to how the disagreement note should be prepared and worded. The vigilance department informed the disciplinary authority, by the said communication that the disagreement note should be properly worded giving a speaking order for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The communication recited that it should not be reflected in the disagreement note that the proposed action is taken at the behest of the Vigilance, rather it should be worded to display independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The communication recited that it should not be reflected in the disagreement note that the proposed action is taken at the behest of the Vigilance, rather it should be worded to display independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority. It is stated in the communication that before serving the disagreement note along with the enquiry officer's report on the petitioner, the disagreement note should be vetted from the Personnel branch. It is stated in the communication that after considering the reply given by the petitioner on the disagreement note, the notice for imposing punishment should be vetted by the Personnel branch before serving the same on the petitioner in order to avoid any procedural error that may jeopardize Railway's interest. It is apparent from the said communication that the disciplinary authority was not only informed as to how the disagreement note should be worded but he was further informed that after receiving the reply from the petitioner, the notice for imposing punishment should also be vetted by the Personnel branch so as to avoid procedural error. It is apparent from the communication that a decision of imposition of penalty on the petitioner was taken, even before the disagreement note was served on the petitioner and the reply of the petitioner to the disagreement note was received. It is apparent from the said communication that the vigilance as well as the personal department had decided to dismiss the petitioner from service even before the disagreement note was prepared. The disagreement note was prepared by the disciplinary authority in the manner in which it was dictated by the vigilance department. There is no application of mind by the disciplinary authority to any of the aspects of the matter. It appears that the findings in the enquiry of the vigilance department are reproduced verbatim in the disagreement note. The action on the part of the respondents vitiates the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 7. Apart from the fact that the said order is tainted and is not based on the opinion of the disciplinary authority, there is an additional reason for setting aside the order. The action on the part of the respondents vitiates the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 7. Apart from the fact that the said order is tainted and is not based on the opinion of the disciplinary authority, there is an additional reason for setting aside the order. In the departmental enquiry, the only charge levelled against the petitioner was that the petitioner had not submitted the record pertaining to his past services, however, in the disagreement note, the disciplinary authority travelled beyond the said charge and referred to the improper constitution of the screening committee, on which the uncle of the petitioner was allegedly one of the member. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that such was not the charge levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. Also, in the charge in the departmental enquiry, there is no reference to the letter of Ms. Mona Singh, dated 5.6.2000 on which great emphasis has been placed by the disciplinary authority in the note of disagreement. Though these grounds were specifically raised by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same are recorded in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it is surprising that the Tribunal has not dealt with the same. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. The judgment reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100 and relied on by the counsel for the respondents would not be applicable to the facts of this case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was proved that the workmen in that case had procured employment on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards, but such is not the case here. 8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the Tribunal and the respondent authorities are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within fifteen days. Though the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service, he would not be entitled to the arrears of salary or back wages for the period during which he was out of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly agrees to give up the same. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within fifteen days. Though the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service, he would not be entitled to the arrears of salary or back wages for the period during which he was out of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly agrees to give up the same. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.