Back
V. M. VELUMANI, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
A. Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by, The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the fifth respondent''s order made in O.A.No.310/00855 of 2013 dated 18.09.2019, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into Railway Service with all consequential benefits both service and monetary.)
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
1. This writ petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the application filed in O.A.No.310/00855/2013 dated 18.09.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Ticket Collector on 17.10.1979. While working as Chief Ticketing Inspector at Arakkonam Junction of Southern Railway''s, he was issued with a major penalty charge memo bearing No.M/Con/C/1536 dated 03.02.2011, the contents of the charge memo are here under:-
Statement of Articles of Charges Framed Against Shri A. Arumugam, CT/AJJ (THEN CTI/SL/ED).
Sri A. Arumugam, CTI/AJJ (then CTI/SL/ED), PF.No.04315420 while working by Train No.6327 on 10/11.1.10 and manning A-1, B-1 & B2 Coaches had failed to
The court emphasized the compliance with procedural rules, the permissibility of considering past service record for imposing penalty, and the discretion of the Appellate Authority in granting compas....
The punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the charges levelled against the employee, and the court's review is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and proportion....
The court emphasized that charges of misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence and that the prescribed procedures must be followed. The court also highlighted the principle that the punish....
The court upheld the removal of the appellant from service for re-issuing used tickets, affirming that the inquiry was fair and the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct.
The court emphasized that it does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence, but would only interfere if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence or if there are....
If two employees are alleged to have committed delinquency forming part of Article-III, but only one employee is proceeded and visited with a grave punishment, whereas another employee is let off, th....
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
