CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00046 of 2023 Dated, this 18th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Deepak Kumar Pal, aged about 42 years, Son of late Parmeshwar Deen, R/o 70, New Civil Lines, Nagheta, Hardoi.

….. Applicant By Advocate: Shri Som Kartik Shukla VERSUS

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Head Office-Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad.

3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad.

4. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (O&F), Northern Railway, Moradabad.

…...Respondents By Advocate: Shri Mithilesh Kumar

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) To set aside the order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the D.M.E.

(ii) To set aside the order dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure-2) passed by the A.D.R.M.

(iii) To calculate and pay full salary of the applicant, as due under the law, along with interest on withheld increment from the date of withholding till its final payment.

(iv) To award cost of the case.”

2. The applicant, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods) under the respondents, was proceeded against departmentally under rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 with the issue of charge sheet dated 28.03.2022 and penalty of withholding of increment for one year was imposed on him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.07.2022. The applicant’s appeal dated 19.08.2022 was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated

21.09.2022. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that the charge against him is based on PRC/MB report dated 09.03.2022 mentioned in the charge sheet itself, but a copy of PRC/MB dated 09.03.2022 was not supplied to him to enable him to defend himself despite his representation dated 28.04.2022 requesting for providing the same and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment ignoring this aspect. He further contends that despite pointing out that he had not been provided the document relied upon, i.e., PRC/MB dated 09.03.2022, the appellate authority rejected his appeal through a non-speaking order.

4. Per contra, the respondents state that as per the report of PRC/MB, the applicant flatly refused to work on the train no. 49078/SGWF for which he was suspended and punished by withholding increment for one year. It is stated that all the details were mentioned in the charge sheet itself and the applicant was instructed to submit his reply according to the charge sheet vide letter dated

20.05.2022.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6.1 A perusal of the charge sheet dated 09.03.2022 reveals that it begins with “According to PRC/MB report dated 09.03.2022….”. Evidently, PRC/MB dated 09.03.2022 is the basis of the charge. Admittedly, this document was not supplied to the applicant in spite of his request to make it available. The disciplinary authority dealt with the applicant’s objection in the impugned order dated 21.07.2002 in the following manner: “The defence is considered but not acceptable. The charge sheet already cover all the details…”. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal noting that the applicant had not presented any satisfactory explanation in his reply and no solid and new fact was found in his appeal.

6.2 It is observed that when in the charge sheet reference is made to a particular document which has been relied upon in framing of the charge, supplying copy of such document to the delinquent employee is essential to afford him a fair opportunity to defend himself in fulfilment of the requirement of principle of natural justice audi alteram partem. The failure of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities to supply copy of PRC/MB dated 09.03.2022, which formed the basis of the charg