Disciplinary proceedings must be supported by substantial evidence; bias against the employee due to prior whistleblowing resulted in procedural unfairness.

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Being aggrieved by the order of the revisionary authority dated 10.2.2016 (Annexure A/10 refer) upholding the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three years with future effect awarded by the appellate authority, the applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“A) quashing and setting aside the Charge Memorandum No.E/308/6/3/196 (12) dated 12.6.2012 (Annexure-A/2); Inquiry Officer's report DAR case No. No.E/308/6/3/196 (12) dated 12.3.2013 (Annexure-A/4);

B) quashing and setting aside the Order No. No.E/308/6/3/196 (12) dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-A/6); Order No. No.E/308/6/3/196 (12) dated 3.7.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure- A/8);

C) quashing and setting aside the Order No.E/DAR/308/39/5/11 (2014) dated 10.2.2016 passed by the Revisional Authority (Annexure-A/10).”

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

2.1 In the year 2011-12, Vigilance Department had initiated a vigilance case against some of the officers including the respondent No.5 herein in which the applicant was a witness and he gave evidence against the private respondent No.5 which result into dismissal of few Railway officers and transfer of several other officers, including the respondent No.5.

2.2 On 2.1.2011, the private respondent No.5 herein stopped the privilege pass given to the applicant as a punishment.

2.3 On 28.3.2012, the applicant's Union took up this issue with Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority quashed the said order of the private respondent No.5.

2.4 On 12.6.2012, with a vengeance, the private respondent No.5 issued a charge sheet to the applicant. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is to the effect that the applicant was negligent in dealing with a rail fracture. In fact, the applicant was informed that there was a signal failure. According to the applicant, as soon as he came to know that there was a rail fracture, he reached the site in no time (Annexure A/2).

2.5 On 29.6.2012, the applicant denied the charges levelled against him (Annexure A/3).

2.6 After completion of inquiry proceedings, on 12.3.2013, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A/4).

2.7 On 22.10.2013, the applicant submitted a representation to the Disciplinary Authority against the said IO’s report (Annexure A/5).

2.8 On 10.3.2014, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect upon the applicant (Annexure A/6).

2.9 On 22.4.2014, the applicant had submitted has appeal to the Appellate Authority against the above order of the Disciplinary Authority.

2.10 On 3.7.2014, the Appellate Authority partially allowed the appeal and reduced the aforesaid punishment of withholding of increment for 3 years instead of 5 years with cumulative effect (Annexure A/8).

2.11 On 16.8.2014, the applicant submitted a revision petition before the Revisionary Authority (Annexure A/9) against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority.

2.12 On 10.2.2016, the Revisionary Authority while rejecting the revision petition of the applicant upheld the punishment awarded by the Appellate Authority.

Hence this OA.

3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant and the applicant has also filed his rejoinder refuting the contents of the OA and also reiterated the averments made in the OA.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant argued the following grounds as also the legal provisions to substa