Disciplinary authorities have the exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for proven misconduct, and courts should not interfere unless findings are irrational or arbitrary.

ORDER

By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM

The applicant by way of instant original application has prayed to quash the order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure A/12), order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure A/11) and order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure A-14).

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Senior Section Engineer (C&W) Durg and was in-charge of Mechanized Laundry Section. He was found in an intoxicated condition (exact time) when the General Manager/SECR and other Principal Heads of the Department (PHODs) came for Annual inspection at the Mechanical Section of Durg, Coaching Depot and Raipur Division. The applicant gave a presentation before higher officials on 17.01.2014 and was immensely appreciated by the officials. The evidence corroborating the same has been observed by the Enquiry Officer in his findings. The applicant immediately thereafter was called at the station and a breath analyzer test was conducted. Technically the blood report showed presence of a minimal level of alcohol. The doctor in his remarks concluded that the applicant's memory level and other activities were normal. The applicant was ill and was taking medicines which had alcoholic content. A copy of prescription of the doctor dated 13.01.2014 is enclosed as (Annexure A/4). Subsequently, thereafter a major penalty charge sheet dated (SF- 5) No. M/D&A/SE-5/LS/SSE/C&W/Durg/05/9421 04.02.2014 was served to the applicant for contravention of the provision of Rule 3.1(ii),3.1(iii) and 22(1)&(2), of the Railway Services(Conduct) Rules, 1966. The applicant submitted his reply dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure A/5) denying the charges levelled against him. The applicant also submitted a representation dated 24.05.2014 (Annexure A/6).

3. The Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report dated 28.05.2014 exonerated the applicant of all the charges except charge under Rule 3.1 (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct), Rules 1966 i.e. „conduct unbecoming of a Government servant‟. The Disciplinary Authority partially disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure A/2). He arrived at a conclusion that all the charges levelled against the applicant were proved on the basis of evidence on record and passed an adverse order of punishment without applying his mind. The Disciplinary Authority had made up his mind for imposing the punishment on the applicant in contradiction of the findings of the Enquiry Officer without explaining any grounds what so ever. The applicant was forced to approach the Tribunal/ Hon'ble High Court wherein it was directed to consider the submissions of the applicant and pass a reasoned order. The applicant submitted his final defence statement. Even then the Disciplinary Authority who was adamant in punishing the applicant, without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective passed an order with malafide intentions imposing the penalty of removal from service and forfeiture of pension vide order dated 8.10.2014. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the applicant preferred an appeal dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure A/10) which was decided on 08.01.2015 (Annexure A/11) in which the Appellate Authority modified the order of removal from service and imposed the punishment of reduction to lower stage in the time scale by 4 stages below (Rs. 15060 + 4600/- GP) for a period of four years with cumulative effect. He further directed that the period of removal from service till reinstatement in service to be treated as „dies-non‟.

4. The Appellate Authority did not analyze the aspect that the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Of