SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2787

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lok Ranjan, Member
Dharmi Meena – Appellant
Versus
M/o Railways – Respondent
O.A.



Disciplinary actions against railway employees for unauthorized political participation upheld due to lack of substantiated claims of procedural violations and proper communication on charges.

Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Charges of unauthorized political participation - Employee contested assembly elections without prior permission - Disciplinary proceedings conducted ex-parte due to non-appearance - Penalty of removal upheld by appellate authority - Applicant failed to prove non-receipt of communications regarding proceedings; complaints of bias found unsubstantiated - Adherence to principles of natural justice established. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Employment Law - Disciplinary proceedings for violation of service rules - The burden of proof lies on the employee to establish claims of non-receipt of communications and procedural unfairness, which was not met by the Applicant - The legitimacy of charges and penalties connected with breaching conduct rules upheld. (Paras 10, 20)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant was a railway employee who contested an election without obtaining the necessary permissions. He claimed he was not an employee during the election period due to failure to report to his new post, which he did not substantively prove. He was served communications on disciplinary proceedings that he claimed to have not received.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found the Applicant did not demonstrate he was not a Railway employee at the time of participating in the election and that all communications were appropriately served. Disciplinary action thus upheld as compliant with the established rules and procedural fairness.

Issues: The critical issues discussed were whether the Applicant was a Railway employee when he contested elections and if proper procedures were followed during disciplinary actions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the burden is on the accused in such cases to demonstrate biases or procedural missteps that significantly affected the outcome of the disciplinary action, which the Applicant did not satisfy.

Result: The original application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the applicant's employment. (Para 2)
2. procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. (Para 5 , 11)
3. arguments surrounding the applicant's discipline violation. (Para 6 , 7 , 10)
4. considerations of bias and procedural correctness. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final verdict and reasoning. (Para 20)

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The present O.A. had been filed by the Applicant upon being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.08.2014, whereby the D.A. had imposed the penalty of removal from Railway service upon the Applicant; and against the order dated 08.03.2016 of the Appellate Authority vide which his appeal dated 26.12.2014 against the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him and to set aside the penalty of removal from service and the prayer for reinstatement in service had been found to be not acceptable and the penalty of removal from Railway service with immediate effect imposed by the D.A. vide impugned Order dated 06.08.2014 was held good.

2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record, the essential matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows, briefly. The Applicant was initially appointed in the RespondentDepartment Railways as Junior Clerk and posted at Ratlam – from where he had sought inter-railway transfer on his request to the office of Chief Works Manager, Kota that had been allowed to him at bottom seniority. Later, he had also sought and had been granted mutual transfer to the Kota Division of West Central Railway, where he joined in 2006 ; and had also been promoted and posted in Kota Division as Senior Clerk. Eventually, he was working in the office of S.S.E./P.Way/Bayana and had been transferred to the office of S.S.E./Signal/Bayana,vide Order dated 22.07.2013 of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Kota Division, WCR viz. Respondent No. 3. While the Applicant had been relieved from the office of S.S.E./P.Way/Bayana on 31.07.2013, he had apparently not joined the office of S.S.E./Signal/Bayana.

3. Later, the Applicant had filed his nomination dated 12.11.2013 to the Returning Officer (S.D.M.), Gangapur City for election to the 90-Gangapur Assembly Constituency as the candidate of the Indian People’s Green Party ; and had also consequently participated in the elections held for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly during the month of November-December 2013. In consequence, the charge-sheet dated 06.01.2014 came to be issued against the Applicantas per the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules ,1968 [the RS(D&A) Rules-1968] and the departmental inquiry had eventually been instituted by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Kota Division, WCR i.e. the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) viz. the Respondent No.4. The Inquiry against the Applicant had been conducted ex-parte as the Applicant had not responded to the various communications from the Inquiry Officer (I.O.), who had submitted his Report dated 11.06.2014to the D.A. In turn, the D.A. had purportedly forwarded the same to the Applicant vide his letter dated 19.06.2014 seeking his representation on the same before decision by the D.A. ; however, upon non-receipt as such, the D.A. had eventually proceeded to impose the punishment of removal from service upon the Applicant ex-parte vide the impugned Order dated 06.08.2014. The Applicant had thereafter submitted his representation dated 26.12.2014 to the Chief Signal &Telecommunication Engineer (CSTE)/WCR i.e. the Appellate Authority (A.A.), viz. Respondent No.5. The said representation/appeal had come to be disposed of vide the impugned Order dated 08.03.2016 of the A.A.

4. The present O.A. had been filed by the Applicant seeking the substantive reliefs inter alia – that the chargesheet dated 06.01.2014 and consequent disciplinary proceedings along with all orders passed in pursuance thereof, the impugned punishment order dated 06.08.2014 (of the D.A.) as well as the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 (of the A.A.) be quashed and set aside ;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top