Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7957
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajveer Singh Verma, J, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A
Ram Krishna Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 051/00341/2019
For the Applicant: Shri M.P. Dixit
For the Respondents: Shri Amit Sinha, ld. ASC
Compliance with disciplinary procedures must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the applicant's right to a personal hearing when requested.
Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Major penalty proceedings initiated against applicant for physical assault - Initial punishment reduced from five years to two years by the Appellate Authority - Appellate Authority's compliance with Tribunal's prior order scrutinized with respect to personal hearing and other substantive points raised in the appeal. (Paras 14-20)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement for personal hearing not established as no request was made by the applicant - Tribunal finds no merit in the appeal based on the lack of evidence for non-compliance. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant seeks redress against his punishment for physical assault, claiming denial of a personal hearing as stipulated by the Tribunal in prior orders, and the disproportionate nature of the punishment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal finds that no evidence substantiating the applicant's claims of non-compliance or lack of considerations was produced, hence the appeal lacks merit.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority complied with the Tribunal's order related to considering punishment and providing a personal hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal confirmed that the Appellate Authority did take the charges seriously and reduced punishment accordingly, ruling that no procedural lapse occurred that warrants Tribunal intervention.
Result: OA is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the applicant's disciplinary proceedings and previous appeals. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the proper consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. review of previous tribunal orders and procedural adherence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 4. final conclusion that no errors in the appellate authority's decision warrant interference. (Para 21) |
O R D E R PER:- Rajveer Singh Verma, MEMBER [J]
1. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant for the following relief:-
“8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order of Punishment dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-A/3 being disproportionate and contrary to Para-9 of the order as contained in Annexure A/1.
8.2 That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct / command the Respondents to restore the pay of the Applicant as was before the imposition of punishment dated 03.03.2014 along with arrears of salary and statutory interest there upon.
8.3 That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct / command the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the Applicant.
8.4 Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant.”
2. This is a second round of litigation. The applicant came to this Tribunal earlier in OA No. 107 of 2014.
3. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant in the OA are that the he is presently working as U.G. Trackman (Track Maintainer) under Senior Section Engineer (P.Way), South East Railway, Mahuda, Dhanbad.
4. That a Major penalty Proceeding under Rule-9 of Railway Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 was initiated against the applicant for the allegation of physical assault with two other Railway employees. I.O. was appointed and submitted his report on 14/16.01.2014 holding the charges proved. Applicant denied the allegation and submitted reply to the IO report on 29.01.2014. Respondent no.8 on 03.03.2014 has imposed Major punishment of 'Reduction to initial stage of pay at Rs.7000 in existing pay band and grade pay for a period of 5 (five) years only with cumulative effect' against which he preferred an appeal on 12.03.2014 but the Respondent No.5 without considering the objections and points so taken there in, rejected his appeal on 02.04.2014.
5. Being aggrieved, applicant filed OA No. 107/2014 which was disposed of on 01.09.2015 (Annexure-A/1) with a direction upon the Respondent No.5 to consider his appeal dated. 12.03.2014 by passing reasoned and speaking order within three months and also to consider the punishment so awarded by the Disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the charges leveled and to provide personal hearing to the applicant and also consider points taken by the applicant in his appeal. But no action was taken by the respondents.
6. Applicant filed CCPA No.11 of 2016 for non-compliance of order passed in OA No. 107/2014.
7. In the meantime, respondent no. 5 (Appellate Authority) has passed an order dated 23.10.2018 whereby major punishment passed by Respondent no.8 has been upheld except reducing the period ‘from five years to two years’.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that without providing personal hearing to the applicant and without considering all the points raised in the Appeal and without applying the mind towards points raised in the Appeal dated 12.03.2014, Respondent No. 5 (Appellate Authority) has passed impugned order dated 23.10.2018 which is contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 107/2014 whereby Respondent No.5 was directed to pass order within three months considering the punishment so awarded by the Disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the charges leveled and also provide personal hearing to applicant.
9. Respondents have filed their written statement.
10. It has been stated by the respondents that in compliance of order dated 01.09.2015 in OA No.
