Tribunals should not interfere with minor disciplinary penalties unless procedurally flawed or perverse; supervisory officer accountable for lapses.

Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member

The Applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“8.1 The impugned orders as contained in Annexure A-1 & A-2 to this application passed by the respondents are fit to be set aside and quashed.

8.2 After setting aside the impugned orders as contained in Annexure A-1 & A-2 to this application, the applicant may be bestowed with all the consequential benefits including the Selection Grade, which his batchmate were granted.

8.3 Any other relief or reliefs may be granted to the applicant to which, he is found entitled to.

8.4 The cost of litigation may be awarded in favour of the applicants.”

2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in his OA, are delineated and discussed herein under:-

The applicant is presently posted as Deputy Chief Signal Telecommunication Engineer/W&D-II in East Central Railway, Hajipur.

It is stated that on 28.02.2012 the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna communicated the decision of the General Manager dated 28.02.2012 whereby the applicant was placed under suspension under Rule 4 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The suspension was reportedly in connection with the issues faced during and after the commissioning of Route Relay Interlocking (RRI) at Patna Junction and Panel Interlocking (PI) alterations at Rajendra Nagar Station.

The allegations broadly related to delay in completion of wiring work at Patna East (Rajendra Nagar) and higher than normal failures at Patna Junction allegedly caused due to improper functioning of Point Machines during the progress of work and during the Pre-Non Interlocking/Non Interlocking period. Subsequently, the suspension of the applicant was revoked by order dated 21.03.2012.

Thereafter, a major penalty charge memorandum dated 22.05.2012 was issued by the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur which was communicated through the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna vide letter dated 31.05.2012.

The articles of charge against the applicant were mainly twofold. Firstly, while functioning as Dy. CSTE/C/Danapur and being in charge of signalling work, the applicant was allegedly responsible for completion of indoor wiring work at Patna East (Rajendra Nagar), which according to the respondents was delayed resulting in extension of the Non- Interlocking period from 13.02.2012 to 17.02.2012. Secondly, the applicant allegedly failed to ensure overall quality of outdoor work which led to higher than normal failures at Patna Junction, particularly due to non-ensuring of proper functioning of Point Machines during the progress of work and the Pre-NI/NI period. On the basis of these allegations, it was alleged that the applicant failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant in contravention of Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 16.10.2012 to the Additional Member (PU), Railway Board, New Delhi denying the allegations. In his reply he explained the circumstances surrounding the work at Patna Yard and stated that during the relevant period several joint works were going on simultaneously. It was also stated that the Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Construction) had instructed him to remain stationed at Patna as desired by the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur, in order to monitor important work relating to the Pre-NI period.

According to the applicant, despite the detailed representation submitted by him, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to record his findings without conducting a detailed enquiry or granting the applicant an opportunity of personal heari