The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appointment of a Presenting Officer, the necessity to produce cited documents in a disciplinary inquiry, and the prohibition against enhancing penalties after a significant lapse of time without proper justification.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

In the instant writ petition, petitioner is legal heir of the deceased employee-Smriti Bihari Sahay. The deceased railway employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Article of charges were issued on 20.03.2007, it was concluded in imposition of penalty of reduction of pay of Rs. 4,600/-to 3,200/- for a period of six years with cumulative effect on 02.02.2009.

The deceased employee preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and it was not decided for about five years. General Manager invoked Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short ‘Rules 1968’) and proceeded to issue a show cause notice on 17.12.2013 to the extent why the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 02.02.2009 shall not be enhanced. The deceased employee furnished his reply on 21.01.2014. Thereafter, General Manager enhanced the penalty to the extent of reducing initial stage of next lower grade for a period of eight years with cumulative effect on 16.04.2014.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 02.02.2009 and in not deciding the deceased employee’s appeal, the deceased employee filed O.A No. 482 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short ‘CAT’). During the pendency of O.A. No. 482 of 2012, the General Manager has taken steps to enhance the penalty. In the result, deceased employee questioned the validity of the enhancement of penalty dated 16.04.2014 in O.A. No. 482 of 2012. O.A. No. 482 of 2012 was dismissed, hence the present writ petition.

3. During the pendency of the present petition deceased employee-Smriti Bihari Sahay died and his legal heir Mrs. Manju Sahay is on record and pursuing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the charge memo one document has been cited in support of the charge, such document was not marked in the inquiry so as to prove the alleged charge. It is further submitted that there is a total inaction on the part of the Appellate Authority and General Manager. Appellate Authority has not decided the deceased employee’s appeal even after lapse of five years from the date of imposition of penalty, on the other hand, when the appeal was pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, next higher Authority-General Manager proceeded to issue show-cause notice as to why penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority shall not be enhanced. He has enhanced the penalty on 16.04.2014, such exercise of power after lapse of five years is not appropriate and it is not permissible in the light of provisions under Rule 25 of Rules, 1968. It is also submitted that CAT has not appreciated the aforementioned contentions. In addition to the aforementioned grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal issue that Disciplinary Authority has failed to appoint Presenting Officer in terms of Rule 9(c). He has also cited decision of this Court dated 10.10.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6738 of 2017 (Salim Ahmad vs. The Union of India and Ors.)

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not committed any error so also next higher authority who has enhanced the penalty on 16.04.2014 and it was affirmed by the CAT. The Disciplinary Authority need not appoint Presenting Officer, therefore, the aforementioned contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. The deceased-Smriti Bihari Sahay was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on 20.03.2007 on certain alleged charge. It was concluded in imposition of penalty of reduction of pay from Rs. 4,600/-to 3,200/-for a period of six years with cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred appeal and it was pending consideration for more than five years