2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 116

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, J, Santosh Mehra, A
Lazarus Lunjala – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, South Western Railway – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00392/2025

Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 14(i) and Rule 14(ii) - Special procedure in certain cases - Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - Second proviso, clauses (a), (b), and (c) - Disciplinary action on ground of conduct leading to conviction on criminal charge - Requirement of recording reasons for dispensing with inquiry only under clause (ii) - No such requirement under clause (i). (Paras 11, 18)

(B) Constitution of India, Article 311(2) - Second proviso (a) - Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on ground of conduct leading to conviction on criminal charge - Suspension of sentence by appellate court does not suspend conviction - Department can take action under Rule 14(i) without awaiting appeal outcome - Conviction remains operative until set aside. (Paras 18, 21, 22, 23)

(C) Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 14(i) - Opportunity of representation - Authority must consider nature of crime before issuing notice - Regular departmental enquiry not required after criminal conviction. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, employees of South Western Railway, were convicted by the First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Sessions Case No. 113/2012 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. They filed a criminal appeal before the High Court, which suspended the sentence but not the conviction. The respondents issued show cause notices under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and subsequently removed the applicants from service. The applicants challenged the orders, arguing that the action should have been under Rule 14(ii) requiring recorded reasons for dispensing with a regular inquiry.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that since the action was based on a criminal conviction, Rule 14(i) was the correct provision. Suspension of sentence by the appellate court does not nullify the conviction, and the disciplinary authority was not required to record reasons under Rule 14(ii) or await the appeal outcome. The impugned orders were valid.

Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary action should have been taken under Rule 14(i) or Rule 14(ii) of the 1968 Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Rule 14(i) applies when action is based on conduct leading to conviction, and no recording of reasons for dispensing with inquiry is necessary. Rule 14(ii) only applies when the authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The conviction remains valid despite suspension of sentence, allowing action under clause (i).

Result: Original Application dismissed. Departmental appeals (if filed) to be decided by the competent authority within stipulated time.

Table of Content
1. this group establishes the facts of the case, including the parties, the impugned orders, the grounds for the action (criminal conviction), the procedural history (issuance of show cause notices under rule 14(i), replies, and departmental appeals), and frames the core legal question: whether the action should have been taken under rule 14(i) or rule 14(ii) of the railway servants (discipline & appeal) rules, 1968. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. this group details the relevant statutory provisions (rule 14 of the railway rules, article 311 of the constitution, rule 16 of the cca rules) and the judicial interpretation, establishing that action under rule 14(i) is permissible upon conviction, and that the requirement for a full inquiry under rule 14(ii) is not triggered unless the disciplinary authority is satisfied it is not reasonably practicable. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. this group reproduces the penalty advice (anx. a-9) for applicant no.1, which demonstrates that the disciplinary authority considered the nature of the crime, the conviction, the reply submitted, and applied the legal principle that an appeal and suspension of sentence do not nullify the conviction, before imposing the penalty of removal from service. (Para 19)
4. this group cites precedent (director of collegiate education v. s. nagoor meera and k.c. sareen v. c.b.i.) to affirm that the department need not wait for a criminal appeal result, as a suspended sentence does not suspend the conviction, and action under rule 14(i) is the more appropriate course. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. this group contains the final conclusion of the tribunal, holding that the department correctly proceeded under rule 14(i) and dismissing the oa. it also provides directions regarding the pending departmental appeals for all three applicants. (Para 24 , 25)

O R D E R PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

1. This OA has been filed on 05.08.2025 for the following reliefs stated in para 8 of the OA:-

“a) Quash / set aside the impugned (i) Order No: L/P.227/LL/PROD ‘D’/DAR, dated 16.05.2025, Annexure-A9, passed by Deputy Chief Workshops Manager, CWM’s office, Hubballi Workshops, Hubballi Respondent No.4 as against Applicant No.1.

(ii) Order No: H /M .348 / I /Tech-I / C&W / UBL /DAR/July 2025, dated 25.07.2025, Annexure – A6, passed by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Co-Ord), Mechanical Branch, SWR, Hubballi, Respondent No.5 herein as against Applicant No.2 and, (iii) Order No: H/P.227/XII/2025/D&AR/SNR/01, dated 28.07.2025, Annexure-A7, passed by Divisional Personnel Officer, Personnel Branch, DRM’s office Hubballi Railway Division, SWR Hubballi, Respondent No.2 herein as against Applicant No.3.

b) Direct the respondents to restore the applicant no.1 to the position held by him as on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 Ann-A9.

c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. It appears from the record that notices Annexure – A5 dated 28.04.2025, Annexure – A6 dated 25.07.2025 and Annexure – A7 dated 28.07.2025 were issued by the respondents under Rule 14 (i) of the “Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968” to the Applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Applicant No.1 filed the reply to the notice (Annexure – A8) and thereafter, the order Annexure – A9 was passed by which the Applicant No.1 was removed from service.

The Applicant No.1 also preferred the departmental appeal Annexure – A10 dated 20.06.2025 which is still pending. Applicants No. 2 and 3 requested time for filing the reply which was granted by letter dated 13.08.2025. During the final hearing, this fact came into the notice that the reply was filed by Applicants No. 2 and 3 and thereafter, they were also removed from service.

3. At the time of final arguments, it was mainly argued by the le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document