The Tribunal upheld the disciplinary proceedings, confirming that due process was followed and the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

ORDER

BY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a suitable order setting aside orders dated 11.3.2008 (Annexure A-3), 20.02.2010 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No. 2.

(ii) Issue any other order or direction as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award cost of this application to the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Station Master in Central Railway, Jabalpur Division on 15.07.1998. On his request, he was transferred to Varanasi Division of North Eastern Railway. He was issued a minor penalty chargesheet, which was later on withdrawn reserving the right to issue a fresh one. Subsequently, a major penalty chargesheet was issued. The applicant submitted his reply, and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. On appeal, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty to reduction in grade and pay (from Rs. 5000–7000 to Rs. 4500/-) for five years, with non- cumulative effect. The applicant filed a revision against the appellate order, which was not decided in time. He then filed OA No. 1352/2009, which was allowed with directions to decide the revision expeditiously. The revision was subsequently decided without assigning reasons. The applicant again challenged the same through OA No. 670/2010, which was allowed with directions to consider all points raised in the revision. Despite this, the Revisional Authority reaffirmed the appellate order without adequate consideration of the applicant’s submissions. Feeling aggrieved, applicant filed present original application.

3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant was found guilty of not ensuring the proper setting of the clamp and pad lock at Point 19B of the concerned line before issuing the authority letter to the train driver through Pointsman to pass the signal. Thus, the applicant, Pointsman and the Cabinman were found guilty. After cancelling the minor chargesheet dated 16.05.2007, the applicant was given the major penalty chargesheet. Due process was followed at all stages of the disciplinary proceedings. The penalty was appropriately modified on appeal, and the revisional authority reaffirmed the decision in accordance with the rules. The applicant was given ample opportunities to present his case, and there was no procedural lapse that warranted further interference. Thus, the present OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Sri Manoj Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that allegation leveled against the applicant in the chargesheet are false. Applicant had taken all care to inform the Train Drivers, Cabinman and other respective authorities. It is further argued that initially minor penalty chargesheet was issued against the applicant but it was withdrawn with liberty to issue fresh chargesheet. It is next argued that major penalty chargesheet was issued; applicant replied to the chargesheet; enquiry was concluded. Inquiry Officer submitted report with the observation that charges leveled against the applicant are proved and the same was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Applicant submitted representation to the enquiry report. Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal from service. An appeal was preferred. Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment of removal from service into reduction from existing gr