Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 525
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ.
Rajqndra Prasad, Son Of Late Bhuletan Prasad
Versus
Union Of India, Through The General Manager, Eastern Railway
CWJC No. 10843 of 1999
Decided On : MARCH 30, 2010
Headnote:Service Law-The appellate order does not discuss the materials and is not satisfactory but recorded the conclusions clearly which shows the application of mind.
The deficiency or the mistake in the appellate order has been made good by the tribunal a forum of facts, which has delved deep into the matter, examined all the issue of facts and law and has disposed of petitions application by an exhaustive and well reasoned order-No prejudice has occurred to the petitioner by the deficient order of appellate authority-Superior forums of appeal revision, etc. are created to rectify the grievances caused by unsatisfactory decisions of the inferior forums. All prescribed procedure were followed in the departmental proceeding-No interference required in the order of punishment.
(Paras 6 & 7)
(2009) 111 Labour Law Journal 624 (SC), (2007)4 SCC 669, (2008)4 PLJR 6 (SC)- Referred to.
Service Law-Railway employee-negligence and dereliction of duties-quantum of punishment-Determination of quantum of punishment is essentially an executive and administrative functions and, the courts are normally reluctant to interfere with the same unless it is seriously disproportionate to the gravity of proven charges and shocks the conscience of the court-Appropriate punishment has been meted out to the petitioner and order is upheld.
(Para 9)
Service Law-Dismissal-Railway employee-Petitioner guilty of negligence and dereliction of duty leading to accident causing loss of life and Government property-Safety and security of train services is extremely important and no leniency can be shown in the regard-Awarding lessor punishment to the petitioner would be compromising with the safety and security of the passengers and properties of the Indian Railways-The present petitioner and the Station Master were primarily responsible for the accident and have therefore been rightly awarded the punishment of removal from service-The guard and the engine driver were responsible for the accident in a lesser degree and was secondary in nature, have rightly been awarded lesser punishment-Grievance of the petitioner that discriminating treatment has been meted out to the guard and the engine driver is wholly unfounded and without any basis.
(Paras 9 to 11)
S.K.Katriar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1999 (Annexure-26), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. 17 of 1994 (Rajendra Prasad V/s. The Union of India & Others), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected, and the order of removal from the service passed by the respondent authority has been upheld.
2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner claims to have been born on 12.6.1944. He had initially joined in the railways as a substitute on 14.12.1964, and was thereafter made a permanent Porter on 31.7.1977. In due course, he was promoted as Leverman grade II on 9.11.1982, and thereafter promoted to Leverman grade I on 12.4.1985. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Leverman at Tehta railway station. While he was on duty on 26.2.1991, two trains had collided causing loss to the railway property. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 4.3.1991 (Annexure-1). This was followed by a preliminary enquiry leading to initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, Station Master, the Guard, and the Engine Driver. The memo of charges dated 21/22.3.1991 (Annexure-3) was served on him. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.5.1991 (Annexure-17), whereby he found that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. This was followed by second show-cause notice dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure-18), alongwith copy of the enquiry report forwarded to the petitioner. He had shown cause by his communication dated 3.6.1991 (Annexure-19). On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplinary authority passed order dated 20.6.1991 (Annexure-20), whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioners departmental appeal was rejected leading to O.A. No. 174 of 1992. The Tribunal disposed of the same by order dated 26.7.1993 (Annexure-23), whereby the order of the learned appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remitted to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made therein. The matter was reconsidered by the learned appellate authority and once again dismissed the appeal on 12.11.1993 (Annexure-25). The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A.No.17 of 1994, which has been rejected by the impugned order leading to the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance that the learned appellate authority did not discharge his duties and functions as enjoined upon him in law and has rejected the appeal by a summary order. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009(111) Labour Law Journal 624(SC) (Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V/s. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others) (Paragraph nos. 8 to 10, 11 and 13). He lastly submits that the sentence is disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges and is also discriminatory in nature. He relies on the following reported judgments:
(i) (2007) 4 SCC 669 (Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank V/s. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and Another) (Paragraph nos. 17 to 24)
(ii) (2008) 4 P.L.J.R. 6 (SC) (Man Singh V/s. State of Haryana & Ors.) (Paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action.
5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. As to the petitioners first contention that the appeal has been disposed of by a cryptic order, we must concede that the same is not satisfactory. Much can be said on both sides. The appellate order does not discuss the materials, but does record the conclusions clearly. He has inc
