CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00448 of 2018 Dated, this 26th day of March, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Kripa Narayan Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, Resident of 547-KA-236, Rambha Bhawan, Sheetlapuram Colony, Lucknow.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar VERSUS

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

2. The Chief Works Manager, C&W Workshop, Northern Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow.

3. The Deputy Chief Material Manager, Northern Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“1. To quash the impugned punishment order dated 14.09.2018, contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA, with all consequential benefits.

1A. To quash the order dated 23.11.2018 (received on 03.12.2018)

(contained as Annexure No.1C to this OA/Affidavit) with all consequential benefits.

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

3. Cost of the present case.”

2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as the Depot Material Superintendent under the respondents, was proceeded against departmentally with the issue of charge sheet dated 10.05.2016 under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. An enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of recovery of Rs. 8,34,882 and withholding of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect vide order dated

14.09.2018.

2.2 The applicant preferred this OA against the order dated 14.09.2018 which was stayed by this Tribunal on 31.10.2018 with the direction that the applicant shall submit appeal which shall be decided by the appellate authority. However, the revising authority passed order dated 23.11.2018 enhancing the punishment imposed on the applicant ignoring this Tribunal’s direction given on 31.10.2018. The revising authority’s order dated 23.11.2018 was also stayed by this Tribunal on 20.12.2018. The applicant amended the OA challenging the revising authority’s order dated 23.11.2018 as well.

3. The applicant contends that in the enquiry, Article 1 pertaining to pecuniary loss was not found proved and only Article 2 pertaining to not taking adequate safeguards was found proved, but the disciplinary authority held him responsible for the pecuniary loss of Rs. 8,34,882 as well vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2018 without informing him of tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry and affording him opportunity to make representation against such tentative disagreement which is impermissible in terms of the law laid down in Punjab National Bank vs Kunj Behari Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 84. The other objection of the applicant is that the revising authority suo moto passed the impugned order dated 23.11.2018 enhancing the punishment ignoring this Tribunal’s order dated 31.10.2018 for disposal of the applicant’s appeal by the appellate authority, and did afford opportunity of hearing to the applicant in violation of rule

25(1)(v)(d)(a) read with 25(4) of the Railway Servants (Discipline &

Appeal) Rules, 1968.

4. The respondents submit that the Vigilance Wing of the Department did not agree with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and consequently the case was referred to the revising authority who converted the minor penalty to major penalty of reduction of pay to two stages below for a period of one year with cumulative effect suo moto at his own discretion.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6.1 In Kunj Behari Mishra (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations:

“The result of the