Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJESH BINDAL, ANIRUDDHA ROY, JJ.
Union of India – Petitioner
Versus
Subrata Ranjan Das – Respondent
W.P.C.T. No. 2 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2021
Central Administrative Tribunal - Disciplinary authority - Denial to perform duty - Punishment - Stoppage of three increments - Quashing of order - Respondent was on duty in train arrived at Dum Junction hours and thereafter signal was lowered to proceed further - Petitioner refused to proceed and was unwilling to continue to discharge his duty and demanded relief Junction - For this reason signal was to be put back at stop position hours - At time the respondent had completed only hours of his duty.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent had violated General Rules and Subsidiaries Rules and acted with a gross negligence while performing his duty - Balancing nature of charges established against respondent punishment imposed by disciplinary authority was minor - Decision of disciplinary authority is well versed and reasoned - Such decision was also taken after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to respondent - This Court cannot sit in appeal over decision of disciplinary authority or Tribunal - Primarily in exercise of its power under judicial review this Court will examine decision making process of disciplinary authority - From a perusal of order of Tribunal it appears that it had failed to appreciate that charges against respondent were duly proved and respondent failed to rebut same - Respondent had a meaningful participation in the disciplinary proceeding - Tribunal further failed to appreciate that considering negligence on part of respondent while performing his duty and having acted in violation of relevant General Rules and Subsidiaries Rules punishment imposed on respondent was minor in nature.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated February 5, 2020 (for short, the impugned order) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (for short, the Tribunal) in OA No. 350/1589/2014 (Subrata Ranjan Das vs. Union of India and Others) [for short, the Original Application] whereunder the Original Application was allowed. Vide impugned order the Tribunal quashed the order dated October 30, 2014 passed by the disciplinary authority. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to proceed against the respondent.
2. The facts of the case as are evident from records are that on August 30, 2011 the respondent was on duty in Train No. CED/SPL, LOCO No. 27642 of call for 21:45 hours at Andul. The train arrived at Dum Dum Junction at 02:32 hours and thereafter signal was lowered at 03:07 hours to proceed further for Chittpur. The petitioner refused to proceed and was unwilling to continue to discharge his duty and demanded relief at Dum Dum Junction. For this reason, the signal was to be put back at stop position at 03:40 hours. At the time the respondent had completed only 06:25 hours of his duty.
3. Finally the train departed from Dum Dum Junction at 04:03 hours with a help of fresh crew as the respondent was reluctant to continue. As a result there had been detention of the train at Dum Dum Junction for 33 minutes. It was shown in Traction Rolling Stock (TRS now operation) account. As a consequence all the trains were to be rescheduled. Such an act was considered to be a gross negligence on the part of the respondent to perform his duty and violation of GR/SR 2.06 i.e. General Rules and Subsidiaries Rules. The respondent was then suspended by Office Order dated August 30, 2011. The suspension was revoked by an Order dated September 12, 2011. The respondent submitted his defense statement on September 27, 2011. In the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the railway employer, the disciplinary authority submitted its report. Punishment of stoppage of three increments as and when due, with non-cumulative effect, was imposed upon the respondent by the disciplinary authority vide order dated November 2, 2011.
4. Being aggrieved against the said punishment order the respondent preferred a departmental appeal. The punishment order was upheld and confirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated May 10, 2012.
5. The respondent then filed a Revision Petition before the departmental Revisional Authority and the same was rejected. The respondent moved the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1159 of 2012. By an order dated December 14, 2013 the Tribunal quashed the penalty order dated November 2, 2011 and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to pass a reasoned order within two months, after giving hearing to the respondent. Pursuant to the said direction dated December 14, 2013 after giving personal hearing to the respondent the appellate authority passed an order on January 6, 2014.
6. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent filed the second Original Application before the Tribunal being OA 263 of 2014. By an order dated August 22, 2014 the Tribunal quashed the said order of the appellate authority and directed the disciplinary authority to hear out the matter in terms of the order dated December 4, 2013 passed in OA No. 1159 of 2012.
7. Pursuant to such direction of the Tribunal, hearing was conducted on October 27, 2014 by the disciplinary authority and an order was passed on October 30, 2014. The same was challenged by the said Original Application before the Tribunal and the impugned order was passed.
8. Mr. Shankar Ranjan Sen, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that, following all the applicable rules and procedure and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing and also following the earlier direction made by the Tribunal the said order dated October 30, 2014 was passed by the disciplinary authority. The same was otherwise a speaking order and should no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
