Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P.NAVEEN RAO, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Now South Western Railway, Hubli and two others. - Petitioners
Vs.
Y.R.Gettiyawar, s/o. Ramappa - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NOS.21082 OF 2005 & 1635 OF 2006
Decided On : 25-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.Bhaskar, Mr. Siva
For the Respondent: Mr. Siva, Mr.P.Bhaskar

Point of Law: 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, the Court can hold such action as amounting to arbitrary exercise of power and authority.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 6 - On allegation of committing misconduct while working as HTTE, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against applicant - Substance of allegation of charge is, deliberately with an intention to mislead gullible public, applicant allowed two passengers in compartment by collecting amount from them, not issuing receipts with an intention to appropriate money for his personal use - Based on findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service - According to applicant, Revisional Authority held that all charges levelled against applicant are not proved - On charge, Revisional Authority observed that what was alleged against applicant can at most amounts to negligence and a procedural lapse - That being so, punishment of reduction to a lower post/grade and fixing pay at minimum of lower grade with recurring effect is too harsh and disproportionate to delinquency alleged and proved and this was not properly appreciated by Hon’ble Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
In ordinary circumstances whenever Court is of opinion that punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings is disproportionate to delinquency alleged and proved, Court should ordinarily remit matter for imposing appropriate punishment and Court should not take on itself task of prescribing any particular punishment - This is in recognition of well settled principle that it is prerogative of employer to take disciplinary action against his employee and to impose appropriate punishment as deemed fit by employer, having regard to delinquency alleged against his employee - Constitutional Courts have carved out an exception to this solitary principle - Court can take up task of prescribing appropriate punishment - Tribunal has not appreciated contentions urged by applicant on finding recorded by Revisional Authority - Taking due regard to chronology of events, at this stage remanding matter to Revisional Authority to review punishment imposed by him and to impose lesser punishment is not just and equitable - 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, Court can hold such action as amounting to arbitrary exercise of power and authority - Taking due note of this aspect also and having regard to conclusion recorded by Revisional Authority in his order and in peculiar facts of these cases, in our considered opinion, Court should prescribe appropriate punishment commensurate to delinquency alleged and proved.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of

ORDER:

P.Naveen Rao, J.

The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2. Heard Mr. Siva learned counsel for the applicant and the Mr.P.Bhaskar learned standing counsel for Railways.

3. Applicant joins service as Ticket Collector and earned promotions as Travelling Ticket Examiner, Head Travelling Ticket Examiner (HTTE), and Travelling Ticket Inspector (TTI). The scale of pay of HTTE was Rs.5000-8000/- and scale of pay of Travelling Ticket Examiner was Rs. 5500-9000/-.

4. On the allegation of committing misconduct while working as HTTE, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant. First charge memo was issued on 3/11.03.1988 and on 8/14.09.1988 revised charge memo was issued containing three charges. The substance of the allegation of first charge is, deliberately with an intention to mislead the gullible public, applicant allowed two passengers, by name, V.S.Kulkarni and P.K.Kurlarni in S-4 compartment by collecting an amount of Rs. 50/- from them, not issuing receipts with an intention to appropriate the money for his personal use. The allegation in second charge is, though he produced correctly the private and railway cash in the Vigilance Check at the first instance, he subsequently produced excess and unaccounted amount of Rs. 301/- from his pocket, which included the unauthorized amount of Rs. 50/- from two passengers. The allegation in third charge is, on 19/20.05.1993 he allowed a passenger travelling with ticket bearing No.34013, Ex.UBL-SURM dated 16.05.1993, though the ticket was no longer valid. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held all three charges as proved.

5. Based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service. On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said punishment. In the revision preferred by the applicant, the Revisional Authority modified the punishment to that of reduction to a lower post/grade of HTTE in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- fixing his pay at the minimum of the scale i.e., Rs. 5000/- for a period of five years with recurring effect.

6. Challenging the said order of the Revisional Authority, applicant filed O.A.No.672 of 2002. By order dated 24.06.2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal partly allowed the O.A., setting aside the order of the revisional authority, dated 25.06.2001 and remanded the matter to the Revisional Authority to pass orders strictly in accordance with the Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (Rules, 1968).

7. According to the Hon’ble Tribunal, though applicant cannot be exonerated and disciplinary action was validly taken against him, punishment imposed on him by the Revisional Authority was not in accord with the provision contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, 1968. According to the Hon’ble Tribunal, the punishment imposed by the Revisional Authority amounts to double punishment.

Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Revisional Authority to impose punishment in conformity with Rule 6 of the Rules, 1968.

8. Challenging the decision of the Tribunal, the Railway Administration filed W.P.No.21082 of 2005. It is the case of the Railways that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. G.Veerasamy, 2002 (5) SLR 595. Challenging the decision of the Tribunal in upholding the disciplinary action, applicant filed W.P.No.1635 of 2006.

9. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the Revisional Authority held that all the charges levelled against applicant are not proved. On second charge, the Revisional Authority observed that what was alleged against the applicant can at the most amounts to negligence and a procedural lapse. That being so, punishment of reduction to a lower post/grade and fixing the pay at the minimum of lower grade with recurring effect is too harsh and disproportionate to the delinquency alleged and proved and this was not