Order :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “CAT”) whereby the Original Application No.203/00563/2014 filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed affirming the revisional order dated 02.06.2014 and appellate order dated 26/27.06.2013 (Annexure P/2) by which order of Disciplinary Authority dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure P/6) has been upheld.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following backdrop:-

(i) The petitioner is a Railway Staff Member and it is alleged that on 15.07.2010 (was not on official duty), he misused the Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) twice at Bilaspur Railway Station to enable his family members (ladies) with luggage to board after departure of train No. 2252 KRBA-YPR Express Ex BSP, causing operational delay. After conducting departmental enquiry while relying upon the two RPF eyewitnesses namely Shir S.K. Pandey, Head Constable (PW-3) and Shri A.K. Sahu, Constable (PW-4), the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner had detained the train No.2252 KRBA-YPR Express Ex BSP on 15.07.2010 through consecutive ACPs at Bilaspur Station, is proved, which is a serious offence and held the petitioner guilty inflicting penalty of reduction of Two stages below i.e. from Rs. 11180 + Rs. 14200 GP to Rs. 10290 + Rs. 4200/- GP in scale Rs. 9300-34800/- for a period of two years with immediate effect.

(ii) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 26/27.06.2013 against which the petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed on 02.06.2014 and thereafter, the same was assailed by filing Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for brevity “Act, 1985”) before the CAT which was ultimately dismissed by impugned order dated 20.10.2023 upholding the punishment imposed upon the petitioner which is sought to be challenged by way of this petition.

3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that admittedly the petitioner on the date of incident i.e. 15.07.2010 was travelling as a passenger in the train with PNR Number and was not discharging his official duty, therefore, it could not be held that petitioner has committed any act of misconduct being violative of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (for brevity “Rules, 1966”) in discharge of his official duties. He would also submit that act of chain pulling is neither a misconduct nor an offence unless and until the said act is done without any reasonable and sufficient cause and the chain pulling is an act which is punishable under Section 141 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “Act, 1989”) and no offence was registered under Section 141 of the Act, 1989 at any point of time against the petitioner in absence of any reasonable and sufficient cause. He would further submit that mere chain pulling is neither an offence nor misconduct, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been charged