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 proportionality of the punishment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 made in OA/310/00690/2017 on the file of the 4th  respondent, namely the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Complex, IInd Floor, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, quash the same as non-est in the eye of law and consequently to allow the O.A.No.310/00690/2017 on the file of the 4th respondent herein, namely the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court, IInd Floor, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, as prayed for with costs within a time frame fixed by this Court.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. The applicant in the original application is the petitioner herein. Challenge in the writ petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chenna in O.A.No.310/00690/2017 dated 28.02.2020, in and by which the Tribunal has dismissed the original application upholding the order of punishment of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was working in Railways as Helper Grade-I. He was initially issued with a charge memo dated 24.07.2001 for unlawful possession of railway aluminium plates valuing Rs.450/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. The first charge memo was dropped on account of administrative reasons on 27.11.2001. Subsequently, after 3 years, on the very same set of charges, a second charge memo was issued on 06.12.2004 for the contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

2.2. Criminal prosecution was also launched on the very same set of charges, wherein after full fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on benefit of doubt in C.C.No.71 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, vide judgment dated 27.04.2007.

2.3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner has been proved. Based on the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority / third respondent, imposed the punishment of Removal from Service, vide order dated 26.02.2010. The order of punishment was confirmed by the Appellate Authority / second respondent, vide order dated 28.06.2010 and by the Revisional Authority / first respondent, vide order dated 24.01.2011.

2.4. Challenging the said orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, the petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.310/690 of 2017, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Tribunal, vide order dated 28.02.2020, has dismissed the original application, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 06.12.2004, the petitioner was issued with the first charge memo dated 24.09.2001 for which he submitted his explanation dated 06.10.2004 and the said charge memo was dropped on account of administrative reasons. Again on 06.12.2004, the petitioner was issued with the same charge memo for the very same charges and though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it was not considered and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse. It is further contended that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, without any independent application of mind, has simply confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority by non-speaking orders and therefore, the impugned orders of the respondents as well as the order of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondents / Railways would cont