Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13904
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Jeevan Lal Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 1128 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.V. Shridhar
For the Respondents: Bhupendra Pandey
Tribunal cannot interfere with disciplinary removal for admitted alcohol intoxication on duty if procedures followed and punishment proportionate.
Headnote:The applicant, a railway employee, was charged with being under the influence of alcohol (115 Mg/Dl) while on duty as Goods Guard, violating Railway Board's zero-tolerance drunkenness policy under Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968 and IRMM Articles 565-566. The disciplinary authority imposed removal from service after inquiry where charges were admitted; appeals and revision were rejected. Court found procedural compliance and no violation of natural justice principles. Issues framed include whether inquiry was vitiated by lack of formal proof of blood report, non-appointment of Presenting Officer, and non-compliance with IRMM procedures for drunkenness examination. Ratio: Applicant's admission of charges obviated need for formal proof; Tribunal's jurisdiction limited per Wednesbury principles, not substituting employer's decision on punishment for proved misconduct (citing SCC cases on judicial review scope). Original Application dismissed; no interference with removal order upheld by authorities.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant charged with intoxication, admitted guilt, removed from service. (Para 2) |
| 2. inquiry flawed: no proof of report, natural justice violated. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. zero alcohol policy followed; charges proved by admission. (Para 5) |
| 4. admission negates proof need; policy mandates zero tolerance. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. limited judicial review; no interference with proportionate punishment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER
Delivered by Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial) :-
In the present original application, the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure A-1) and to direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that while workings as Goods Guard, the applicant was served with a charge sheet on 02.02.2025 on being found in intoxicated condition under influence of alcohol by 115 Mg/Dl (Annexure A-2). The applicant as well as the defence witnessed were admitted the charge in inquiry proceeding and based on the inquiry report, a copy of which was also supplied to the applicant, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure A-4) imposed the penalty of removal from service. Thereafter, the applicant preferred appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure A-5). Being aggrieved the applicant preferred revision petition which was also rejected by the Revising Authority vide order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure A-1). Hence, the applicant has filed the instant original application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and against the rules.
Learned counsel for the applicant stated that conclusion of the Inquiry Officer is based on a letter forwarding the blood alcohol examination report and not a blood alcohol examination report. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that during the inquiry proceeding neither the Sr. DMO/SECR nor any competent staff of Dr. Lal Pathlabs was called to prove the documents. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the memorandum of charge has not been issued in accordance with Rule 9 sub rule 6 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968 with provides that imputation of misconduct should be definite and distinct article of charge. The principle of natural justice have also not been followed as no opportunity was given to the applicant to take assistance of defence assistant neither Presenting Officer was appointed and the sole prosecution witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer himself putting forth questions . He contended that the examination of the prosecution witness cannot be said to be made to remove any doubts in the mind of enquiry officer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.08.2004 in UOI Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contented that as per Article 565 of IRMM, all drunkenness cases should be examined by the Railway Doctor and a careful examination should be made and every important particular should be note down whereas, in the present case, blood examination was not done in the Railway Hospital but in the authorized collection centre. Apart from this, none of the provisions contained in Article 566 of IRMM were followed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings being against the rules is vitiated and prayed that the OA may be allowed and relief may be granted to the applicant.
5. Per contra, based on the reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was habitual for absconding from duty and chronic alcoholic during duty. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per drunkenness policy issued by the Railway Board (Annexure R-2), no alcohol is admissible in the blood of staff working on the trains and zero blood alcohol levels only are acc
