Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 332
2012(3) JLJ 194
Ajit Singh and Sanjay Yadav, JJ.
Durga Prasad Kewat v. The Chief Mechanical Engineer
Writ Petition No.2971 of 2010 (Jabalpur); Decided on 21.6.2012.
C.A. Thomas for petitioner;
Rajesh Soni for respondents.
Headnote:Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 -- Rr.11 and 25 -- Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 -- Rr.3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) -- disciplinary action for misconduct in departmental proceeding -- reasonable opportunity of making representation given -- minor penalty regarding salary imposed -- no interference warranted.
Held : It is apparent from clause (a) of subd`rule (1) of rule 11 that Railway servant is to be informed of the proposal to take an action against him and reasonable opportunity of making such representation and of the proof of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal.
In the instant case the petitioner was duly served with the minor penalty charge-sheet and disciplinary authority after considering the explanation tendered by the petitioner inflicted upon him the penalty where against the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority being dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment issued a notice to the petitioner as is contemplated in rule 25 of the Rules of 1968. However, after receiving the explanation he dropped the same and affirmed the order of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect inflicted by the disciplinary authority. In a further appeal preferred by the petitioner the appellate authority exercising its power under rule 25 and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner against the proposed enhancement of punishment inflicted the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage below for a period of 3 years with non-cummulative effect.
The procedure which has been adhered to by the respondents cannot be faulted with as would warrant any interference. (1999)5 SCC 762 followed.
jsy lsod ¼vuq‘kklu rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1968 && fu-11 rFkk 25 && jsy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1966 && fu-3¼1½(i)(ii)(iii) && foHkkxh;dk;Zokgh esa vopkj ds fy, vuq‘kklfud dkjZokbZ && vH;kosnu nsus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k x;k && osru ls lacaf/kr y?kq ‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir && gLr{ksi dh vko‘;d ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu;e 11 ds mi&fue ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½ ls ;g izdV gS fd jsy lsod dksbZ mlds fo:) dkjZokbZ djus ds izLrko dh rFkk ml vopkj ;k dnkpkj ftlds vk/kkj ij dkjZokbZ izLrkfor dh xbZ gS] ds lcwr dh lwpuk nh tkuh gksrh gS rFkk mls ,slk vH;kosnu] tSlk og izLrko ds fo:) nsuk pkgs] nsus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k tkuk gksrk gSA
izLrqr ekeys esa] ;kph dks lE;d~ :i ls y?kq ‘kkfLr vkjksi&i= dh rkehy dh xbZ rFkk vuq‘kklfud vf/kdkjh us ;kph }kjk fn, x, Li"Vhdj.k ij fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ ml ij ‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh ftlds fo:) ;kph us vihy izLrqr dhA vihy izkf/kdkjh us naM dh ek=k ls vlarq"V gksdj ;kph dks lwpuk tkjh dh ;Fkk 1968 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 25 esa vuq/;kr gSA rFkkfi] Li"Vhdj.k izkIr djus ds i‘pkr~ mlus bls lekIr dj fn;k rFkk vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk fn, x, vlap;h izHkko lfgr ,d osruo`f) jksdus dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"V fd;kA ;kph }kjk izLrqr vxyh vihy esa vihy izkf/kdkjh us fu;e 25 ds v/khu viuh ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx dj rFkk ;kph dks izLrkfor naM c<+k, tkus ds fo:) volj nsus ds i‘pkr~ vlap;h izHkko lfgr 3 o"kZ dh dkykof/k ds fy, osru dks ,d izØe uhps ?kVkus dh ‘kkfLr nh xbZA
izfØ;k] ftldk izR;FkhZx.k }kjk ikyu fd;k x;k gS] =qfViw.kZ ugha gS ftlesa fd dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tk,A ¼1999½5 ,l lh lh 762 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14] 15 ,oa 16
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this petition. By the impugned order the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No.1110 of 2009 which was directed against the order dated 8.12.2006 whereby in a revision the punishment to the petitioner was enhanced from stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect to that of reducing pay to one stage below for a period of three years with non-cumulative effect in the same time scale.
2. Relevant facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that the petitioner, Technician (mechanical) Grade I, Carriage and Wagon Rack Maintenance, West Central Railway, Jabalpur, was detailed on 7.5.2006 on duty between 0 hours to 8:00 a.m. That between 4-5 a.m. on 7.5.2006 on an inspection being carried out the petitioner was found sleeping in Coach No.07404 SLRWC. The said act on the part of the petitioner led to issuance of a charge-sheet/show cause notice dated 9.5.2006 under rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for inflicting minor penalty. Petitioner on receiving the notice tendered his explanation on 31.5.2006 explaining thereby that at the relevant time because of abdominal gastric problem he was lying down in the coach but not sleeping.
3. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the explanation tendered by the petitioner and finding that no cogent material has been brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate the explanation of ailment that the petitioner was suffering from gastric pain, found him guilty of the charges and inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect.
4. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority taking note of the entire facts and disagreeing with quantum of punishment inflicted for dereliction of duty issued a show cuase notice on 6.7.2006 as to why the punishment be not enhanced to that of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect. Responding to said notice petitioner filed the reply denying the allegations. The appellate authority found that the petitioner has tendered a different ailment in his explanation and, therefore, disbelieved the version that he was suffering from abdominal problem; but taking into consideration the undertaking given by the petitioner that the mistake committed by him will not be repeated in future, withdrew the notice of enhancement of punishment but upheld the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority.
5. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred further appeal/revision. The appellate/revisional authority invoking its revisional jurisdiction called upon the petitioner by a show cause notice dated 17.11.2006 as to why the penalty imposed on the petitioner be not enhanced as he was apprehended sleeping on duty. Petitioner denied the charges.
6. The appellate/revisional authority after considering the representation preferred by the petitioner and giving him personal hearing and on a finding that the petitioner could not substantiate the version of suffering pain in the stomach as also that the petitioner has failed to establish that the suffering was due to use of heavy hammer, enhanced the punishment of the petitioner from stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect to that of reduction of pay by one stage below for a period of 3 years with non-cumulative effect in time scale of Rs.4500-7000 (RSRP) from Rs.5,750/- to Rs.5,625/- by order dated 8.12.2006. The revisional authority by its order dated 27.11.2007 upheld the punishment inflicted by the appellate authority.
7. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur. The Tribunal on the basis of the material brought before it declined to interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner on a finding that there is no perversity and that the petitioner has not been abl
