Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8097
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, M.L. SRIVASTAVA, A
Runu Rani DasMalakar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Original Application 040/00005/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri C.S. Hazarika
For the Respondents: Shri S. Choudhury, Rly. Adv.
Negligence due to intoxication while on duty renders an employee unfit for sensitive positions.
Headnote:The case involved the applicant challenging disciplinary actions taken against him by railway authorities following allegations of intoxication while on duty. The tribunal dismissed the application, upholding the penalty of removal from service based on the evidence of intoxication. The tribunal found that a person who consumes alcohol on duty is unfit for sensitive posts. The main issue revolved around whether the applicant's intoxicated condition impacted his performance and the necessity for strict discipline in sensitive roles. The tribunal reasoned that such negligence could result in severe consequences, affecting public safety. The tribunal concluded, stating, 'the OA deserves to be dismissed.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the disciplinary proceedings and allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and procedural fairness. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. determination of negligence due to intoxication. (Para 7) |
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA,MEMBER (J)
Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s) :
“8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash: -
(i) the Memorandum of Charge dated 16.12.2013 issued by the Senior Divisional Operation Manager, Lumding Division, NF Railway,
(ii) the enquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Officer, the DTI, Lumding on 21.08.2014 initiated under the aforesaid Memorandum of Charge,
(iii) the penalty order i.e. Notice of Imposition of Penalty dated 16.01.2015 issued by the Sr. Divisional Operation Manager, Lumding Division, NF Railway imposing penalty of removal from service,
(iv) the appellate order rejecting his appeal issued by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, NF Railway, Lumding and communicated to him by the Divisional Operations Manager (General), NF Railway, Lumding on 29.01.2016, and
(v) the revisional order issued by the Chief Operations Manager, NF Railway, Maligaon rejecting his revision petition communicated by the in-charge Divisional Operations Manager, NF Railway, Lumding though letter dated 04.01.2017, (i.e. Annexure A1, A2, A3, A4 & A5 respectively)
8.2 That the respondents be directed to re-instate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.
8.3 Any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”
2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from pleadings are that the applicant while serving as Station Superintendent, Phiding under the Lumding Division of the North East Frontier Railway, was suspended vide order dated 10.09.2013 and then served with a memorandum of Charge sheet dated 16.12.2013 issued by the Senior Divisional Operation Manager, Lumding Division, NF Railway, containing four articles of charges. The allegation of charges was that, on 09.09.2013, the applicant dispatched Train No. 15694 Up Barak Valley Express from Phiding Station by issuing a signal. OPT/369(3b) is issued in this case of signal failure but it was issued on 09.9.2013 without verifying the signal and panel which was in working order. The applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations brought against him and nominating one Sri GG Das as his Defence Counsel/Assistant. Applicant was provided documents containing the rules through his letter dated 17.01.2014. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, applicant submitted his defence brief dated 11.08.2014.
3. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer prepared the Enquiry Report on 21.08.2014, wherein applicant was found guilty of all charges. The applicant, represented against the Enquiry Report vide letter dated 15.12.2014 to the Sr. DOM/LMG and the Sr. DOM/LMG issued the penalty order imposing the penalty dated 16.01.2015 removing the applicant from service.
4. The applicant appealed against his removal order before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, NF Railway, Lumding vide appeal dated 20.02.2015, however the same was also rejected vide letter dated 29.01.2016. Applicant preferred a Revision Petition against the Appellate Authority’s Order dated 10.02.2016 which was also rejected and applicant was communicated vide letter dated 04.01.2017. Hence this OA.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the Railway Authorities deliberately did not examine a single person who actually drew blood from the applicant and in fact there is no proof that the blood which was tested actually belongs to the applicant. No person who actually tested the blood or took the breathalyser test was examinedby the railway respondents during the inquiry. He further submitted that the B.A test report reveals 478 mg/100 mlalcohol even after 5 hours of the incident meaningtherebythe test was not conducted immediately so it cannot prove that the applicant was intoxicated during duty as i
