CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Original Application No. 332/00024/2016 This, the 18^th day of March, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

Harshvardhan, aged about 57 years, s/o Late Shri V.S.

Arya, resident of – A- 208, Rajajipuram, Lucknow.

..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow.

3. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Northern Railway, Lucknow.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt.

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“1. To quash the punishment order dated 26.06.2015 and appellate order dated 04.09.2015 contained as Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 to this OA with all consequential benefits.

2. To restore the pay of the applicant and release the difference alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.

3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

4. Cost of the present case.”

3. Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that applicant was employee of the Respondent Department. During service, he was served charge-sheet on 02.08.2011. Disciplinary Authority did not afford opportunity of hearing to the applicant and passed the impugned punishment order. There was violation of principle of natural justice. Appellate authority disposed of the appeal arbitrarily without giving any reasons to the points raised in the appeal.

Impugned punishment order and appellate order are arbitrary and illegal.

Hence, this OA.

4. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter- alia, stated that applicant while working in the Department issued a charge sheet dated 02.08.2011. Inquiry officer submitted his report. Applicant submitted reply against the inquiry report. After considering the report of inquiry officer as well as the representation of the applicant against show cause notice, the competent authority passed the punishment order. An appeal preferred by the applicant was also rejected by the appellate authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order by detailing each and every pointes raised by applicant.

Hence, punishment order and appellate order are legal and justified and do not call for any interference.

5. Applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments made in the Original application. It has been further stated that punishment order has been passed in a mechanical manner without giving proper opportunity of hearing and without conducting the proper inquiry. Appellate authority has also passed the order without considering the points raised by applicant.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the present case, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the applicant. Inquiry has been conducted arbitrarily. In fact, inquiry has not been conducted as per rules. Further argued that the appellate order also suffers from the non-application of mind.

Further contended that impugned punishment order (Annexure A-1) and appellate order (Annexure No. A-2) deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that the applicant was found guilty of violating Railway Conduct Rules 1966. Applicant was given proper opportunity of hearing. OA has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Subrata Nath, Civil Appeal Nos.—of 2022 @ SLP (C) No. 3524 of 2022 dated 23^rd November, 2022 [2022 SCC Online 1617], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follo