Disciplinary Action Against Railway Officer Quashed for Breaching Tribunal's Deadline & Proceeding Without Valid Time Extension: CAT Kolkata - 2025-05-27

CAT Quashes Disciplinary Action Against Senior Railway Official, Cites Blatant Disregard for Time Mandates

Kolkata: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench, has quashed the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant penalty order against Mr. Anjan Ray , Chief Personnel Officer (IR) at Eastern Railway. The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das (Administrative Member), found that the railway authorities continued the disciplinary action beyond the timeframe prescribed by the Tribunal in an earlier order and proceeded even after their application for an extension of time was rejected.

Case Background: The Charge and Initial Tribunal Directive

Mr. Anjan Ray faced a charge sheet dated March 2, 2017, alleging that while working as Chairman/RRC/Eastern Railway, he was responsible for irregularities in entrusting the printing of confidential question papers to an agency (M/s. Iubar India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) that lacked the requisite infrastructure and experience. This allegedly led to the leakage of question papers for Group D recruitment exams in 2014, compelling the Railway Administration to cancel exams and conduct re-examinations, incurring an additional expenditure of approximately Rs. 5.97 crore and damaging the credibility of the railway recruitment process.

Mr. Ray had previously approached the Tribunal (O.A. No. 1146 of 2017) challenging the charge sheet. On January 31, 2019, the Tribunal disposed of this O.A. with a consent order directing the respondent authorities to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the order. This order was communicated on February 21, 2019, setting the deadline for conclusion around May 21, 2019.

Applicant's Arguments: Violation of Tribunal's Order

Mr. Ray , represented by Counsel Mr. A. Datta and Mr. N. Biswas , argued that: * The disciplinary proceedings continued well beyond the three-month period mandated by the Tribunal's order of January 31, 2019. * The respondents filed an Miscellaneous Application (M.A. 475 of 2019) seeking a six-month extension only after the expiry of the initial three-month period. This M.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal on November 29, 2019, as "not maintainable since it has been filed beyond the time limit" and had thus "become infructuous." * Despite the lapse of the mandated period and the untenability of their extension plea, the Railway Board issued a penalty order on November 26, 2019 (received by the applicant on November 27, 2019), imposing a "reduction to lower stage in the time scale (level) of pay by two (02) stages for a period of six (06) months without cumulative effect." * This continuation of proceedings and imposition of penalty was a direct violation of the Tribunal's order. * A subsequent reply from the Railway Board dated July 6, 2021, to his representation was cryptic and showed non-application of mind.

Respondents' Defence: Seriousness of Charges and Justification for Penalty

The Eastern Railway and Railway Board, represented by Counsel Mr. S. Chatterjee , contended that: * The charges against Mr. Ray were serious, involving significant financial loss and damage to the Railways' reputation. * The penalty imposed was justified after the charges were established upon inquiry. * They had apprehended that finalising the disciplinary case within the stipulated three months would be difficult while observing all procedures, hence the M.A. for extension was filed. * The current O.A. was filed with malafide intention after a delay of two years, after Mr. Ray had already served the penalty and been promoted. * Mr. Ray had not appealed the penalty order to the Appellate Authority (the President).

Tribunal's Analysis: Procedural Flaws and Overreach by Authorities

The Tribunal first addressed the M.A. for condonation of delay filed by Mr. Ray for the current O.A. (O.A./100/2022). Citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's stance on limitation periods during that time, along with the principle that "sufficient cause" for delay is paramount (referencing Mool Chandra vs Union of India ), the Tribunal allowed the condonation.

On the merits, the Tribunal found significant procedural flaws:

> "We observe that there is procedural flaw of delay in initiating departmental action right from the stage of initiation of departmental proceedings and thereafter, not concluding the same within the time stipulated i.e. three months from the date of passing the Order."

The Tribunal highlighted that the M.A. for extension of time (M.A. 475 of 2019) was filed after the three-month period had already expired and was subsequently dismissed on November 29, 2019. The Disciplinary Authority's order was dated October 31, 2019, and the final penalty order was issued by the Railway Board on November 26, 2019.

> "The M.A. for extension of time came to be filed after expiry of three months’ time. ... The penalty order was issued by the Railway Board on 26.11.2019 and was received by the applicant on 27.11.2019. ... despite the application for extension of time was not acceded to, the respondents exceeded the jurisdiction by passing the major penalty order thereby imposing the penalty."

The Tribunal emphasized the respondents' lack of vigilance and their overreach of judicial orders:

> "The respondents had not been vigilant enough in taking action in a time bound manner. Even, the dismissal order qua M.A. 475 of 2019 seeking extension of time, no appeal was preferred. Despite the said facts, the respondent continued with the departmental action thus over reaching the judicial order(s) passed by the Tribunal."

The Tribunal drew support from various judicial precedents, including a Madras High Court decision (Writ Petition No. 17931 of 2014) where disciplinary proceedings were ended due to undue delay despite court directions, and Supreme Court judgments on delay in departmental proceedings ( Amresh Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) and procedural fairness ( Maharana Pratap Singh Vs The State of Bihar ).

The reply dated July 6, 2021, from the Deputy Secretary Establishment (Special), Railway Board, was also found to be unsatisfactory:

> "We find that same is cryptic and non-speaking one. The delay in giving effect to the order(s) of the Tribunal are not attributable to the applicant thus the respondents in slumber(s) they cannot be allowed to act to her prejudice."

Final Decision and Directions

Concluding its analysis, the Tribunal ruled in favour of Mr. Anjan Ray :

> "In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that disciplinary proceedings had continued beyond the time frame prescribed by this Tribunal particularly when the Tribunal had rejected the application for extension of time to continue the disciplinary proceedings. We therefore, quash and set aside the order of penalty which had culminated as a result of continuance of the disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as the said disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in violation of the order passed by the Tribunal."

The Tribunal also set aside the reply dated July 6, 2021. The respondents have been directed to restore all consequential benefits to Mr. Ray within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order dated May 27, 2025. No costs were awarded.