CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00047/2023 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 Shyam Lal Mishra

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 16.02.2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the D.M.E.

(ii) To set aside the order dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure-2) passed by the A.D.R.M.

(iii) To award cost of the case.”

2. The facts of the case are that 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 25.10.2021 and penalty of withholding of two sets of Privilege Ticket Order (PTO) was imposed on him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 16.02.2022. The applicant’s appeal dated 03.05.2022 was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 07.07.2022. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that the charge against him is based on PRC/Moradabad Shift 0-8 report dated 18.10.2021 mentioned in the charge sheet itself, but a copy of the report dated 18.10.2021 was not supplied to him to enable him to defend himself despite his reply dated 18.11.2021 requesting for providing the same and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment without considering his reply. He further contends that despite pointing out that he had not been provided the document relied upon, i.e., report dated 18.10.2021, the appellate authority rejected his appeal through a non-reasoned and 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. DDA on 18.10.2021 for which he was punished after considering his reply and facts of the case.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6.1 A perusal of the charge sheet dated 25.10.2021 reveals that it begins with “According to PRC/Mora. Shift 0-8 report dated 18.10.2021….”. Evidently, the report dated 18.10.2021 is the basis of the charge. It is not in dispute that this document was not supplied to the applicant in spite of his request to make it available. It is observed that the disciplinary authority did not address the applicant’s objection in the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 at all. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal noting that he had considered the applicant’s appeal, comments of the disciplinary authority on the appeal, and documents in the file and did not find any substantial ground to prove the applicant’s innocence; it is noted that the appellate authority also did not address the issue of supply of the report dated 18.10.2021 to the applicant.

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 the report dated 18.10.2021, which formed the basis of the charge against the applicant, vitiated the departmental proceedings, in our opinion.

7.1 In view of the foregoing, the impugn