The imposition of harsher penalties on a secondary responsible employee compared to a primary responsible employee is arbitrary and violates natural justice principles.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“In view of the facts stated above, the applicant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to (i) order No.C/E.37/TRS/227/3/SFV/12/02, dated 30.10.2012 r/w Corrigendum dated 25.11.2014; (ii) Order No. C/E.37/TRS/3/SFV/12/02, dated 04.01.2013; and (iii) order No.C/E.37/TRS/3/SF.V/12/02 dated 287.11.2014 and declare the action of the 4th respondent imposing a penalty of withholding of increment for a period of 03 (three years) with cumulative effect, the action of the 3rd respondent holding good the said penalty and the action of the 2nd respondent in retaining the said penalty by modifying the period to the extent 01(one) year with cumulative effect as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and set aside and quash the said penalty orders with a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits as if no penalty was imposed on the applicant and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the Applicant while working as Assistant Loco Pilot. Kazipet in Secunderabad division of South Central Railway was issued with a Charge Memorandum dated 19.01.2012 proposing an inquiry under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 on the allegation that the Applicant failed to secure the Loco and formation which rolled back in Ramagundam (GOSG Sdg.,) and resulted in derailment of Two BOX-'N' Wagons, thus violated Rule G&SR 4.61 and 6.04.2.1. In the said charge memorandum, one document i.e., the Inquiry Report received from Senior Divisional Safety Officer, Secunderabad; and two witnesses viz., G.Laxminarayana, Points Man 'A', Ramagundam and K.Ravi, Senior Yard Porter, Ramagundam were cited under Annexure-III and Annexure- IV. But the said inquiry report of Sr.DSO which is cited as one of the documents has neither been supplied to the Applicant nor the said Sr. DSO has been cited as a witness under Annexure-IV. The Applicant vide his explanation dated 10.02.2012 inter alia mentioned that the train which finds a mention in the Article of Charge was rolled back when he was not present in the Loco and went for "Tea with the permission of the Loco Pilot viz., D.Tagore Nath.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the 4th respondent appointed 5th respondent i.e., one D.Senthil Kumar, Chief Loco Inspector, Kazipet vide order dated 17.02.2012 as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the Applicant. The report of the said Inquiry Officer dated 22.04.2012 was served on the Applicant on 30.04.2012 which contain a finding that the charges were proved. The Applicant submitted his explanation on the report of the inquiry categorically making it clear that inspite of his submission to the Inquiry Officer during the preliminary inquiry held on 02.03.2012 that he is innocent and not guilty, the IO mentioned in the report that the Applicant had partially accepted the charges while in fact the Applicant had denied the charges. During the inquiry held on 14.03.2012, the Inquiry Officer spoke in Telugu to the witnesses present and the Applicant could not understand that conversation as he does not know Telugu. Inspite of the Applicant conveying to the Inquiry Officer after the latter conveying to the Applicant that the two Points Man who are the witnesses stated that th