A criminal conviction grants the disciplinary authority power to dismiss a servant without a full departmental inquiry. Judicial review of the quantum of punishment is restricted, restricted only to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, and parity in punishment requires absolute identity of charges and conduct.

OA/383/2021

ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member)

1. By this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:

“…….to call for records pertaining to proceedings NO. E(O)1-2019/ae-3/SCR/18 dt. 22.3.2021 of Respondent No.1, which was communicated by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No. SCIt/P-HQ/426(8)/CON/P-9/160 dt. 15.4.2021 along with UPSC advice, wherein the appeal filed by the applicant was rejected and confirmed the penalty order of Dismissal from service vide proceedings No. E (O)I-2017/PU-2/SCR/106 dt. 3.8.2018, which was communicated by the Respondent No.3 on 9.8.2018 by non-speaking order and the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority,

ii) Consequently, direct the respondents to take back the applicant into service with all consequential benefits and to pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are summarised below:

i. The applicant was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher by the Railway Recruitment Board and posted in the Vijayawada Division, at Rajahmundry, in the South Central Railway, on 20.11.1993. The Applicant was promoted as Junior Lecturer, which is a zonal post, and transferred to the Hyderabad Division. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as HM (Gazetted), as a Group B officer, and posted at the RBHS/North Lalaguda, Secunderabad. The applicant discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his higher ups.

ii. While the applicant was working at Lalaguda, Smt. Vijaya Gouri, Sr. Drawing Teacher, RBHS, Lalaguda, in collusion with K. Narasimhulu, Chief Office Superintendent, Sr.DPO/O/SC, made a complaint that the applicant and Narasimhulu, had together demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for doing favour in managing the vigilance enquiry regarding her caste. In this regard, the applicant submits that, though he was much junior to Vijaya Gouri, he had got promotion on merit. Therefore, she bore grudge against him and hatched a conspiracy, in collusion with the said Narasimhulu, who worked earlier as a TGT, to trap the applicant. The said Narasimhulu approached the applicant and requested him to give surety for a loan to be obtained from Vijaya Gouri for construction of his house as Vijaya Gouri had asked Narasimhulu to make the applicant stand surety. Vijaya Gouri telephoned Narasimhulu on 31.7.2017 that the amount was ready and asked him to bring the applicant for completion of the formalities. The applicant was not aware of the conspiracy hatched by her. For laying a CBI trap, she cooked up a story that the applicant had demanded the amount for favouring her in the inquiry. In fact, no inquiry was pending against her regarding her caste and it was only invented for the purpose of the case. On the basis of the above incident, Respondent No. 2 issued a charge memo under Rule 9 of the Railway (D&A) Rules and the applicant was transferred to Kazipet. Respondents did not proceed with the charge memo.

iii. In the above incident, the CBI filed a charge sheet vide CC 10/2015, on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, wherein the applicant and Narasimhulu were shown as Al and A2. After an elaborate trial, the Hon'ble C.B.I. Court convicted the applicant and Narasimhulu, by its order, dt. 31.10.2017, and ordered them to