In disciplinary hearings, charges must be substantiated by legally admissible evidence, including properly presented forensic reports, or they cannot be upheld.

ORDER

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicant is a former Loco Pilot/Passenger in the Hubbali Division of South Western Railway. He started career as an Assistant Loco Pilot on 29.07.2002, promoted as Loco Pilot in 2007 and was working as Loco Pilot/Passenger from March 2018. While so, on 07.05.2022 when he reported for duty for taking up assignment as Loco Pilot/Passenger in train No.07342, the breath analyzer test undergone prior to commencement of duty, turned positive recording 45mg/100ml alcohol in blood. Immediately after making alternate arrangement, his blood sample was collected and sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Belagavi. Report received from the laboratory confirmed that his blood contained 47.25mg/100ml alcohol. Thus, alleging serious acts of misconduct, DAR proceeding was initiated and charge was framed against him. He denied the charge and contended that he was taking medicine for Psoriasis, which may be the reason for reading alcohol in blood, that he is a teetotaler, had never taken alcohol, he has been rated as a 'Grade-A' Loco Pilot, had never given room for any such complaint in the past and the allegations are baseless.

2. The matter was enquired into and the Enquiry Officer rendered a finding against him. The applicant gave his representation against Annexure-A7 finding and ultimately, by Annexure-A1 penalty order dated 03.07.2023, a punishment of removal from service was rendered against him.

3. He preferred appeal against the finding, which was dismissed and then in the revisional order, Annexure-A3 dated 05.04.2024, the 4^th respondent modified the punishment on humanitarian grounds and reduced to one for compulsory retirement with 75% pensionary benefits. The applicant challenges the legality of Annexures-A1 to A3 orders and seeks a direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

4. According to the applicant, Annexures-A1 to A3 are arbitrary, discriminatory, non-speaking and against all principles of natural justice, such orders were passed in mechanical exercise of power, without application of mind. Further, it is submitted that there is no valid or legal evidence against him for finding him guilty of the alleged charges. He had never been alcoholic,the enquiry report was passed without appreciating evidence properly. The contents of the laboratory report were not proved. The Enquiry Officer had proceeded as though it is the duty of the charged officer to disprove the allegations. The fact that he being a psoriasis patient, was taking ayurvedic medicine, which fact proved through his witness, was not considered. So, according to the applicant, the findings reached against him are perverse.

5. Though the cause of action had arisen within the area of operation of South Western Railway, applicant has approached this Tribunal since he is a native of Palakkad.

6. Respondents have denied the contentions. According t them, the charge raised against the applicant was proved and it was found that his blood sample contained 47.25mg/100ml alcohol, which proved grievous misconduct on the part of the applicant. In the light of such proved facts, the Enquiry Officer is justified in making adverse finding against the applicant.

7. Relying on the decision reported in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [(1997) 2 SCC 491] they have pointed out that there were materials to find him guilty of the charge. The FSL report was marked as suggested by the applicant. At that time he had not raised any objection. The standard of proof required in a criminal trial cannot be insisted in a disciplinary enquiry. In this connection. Reliance has be