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) 4779

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjana Shahi, Judicial Member, Lok Ranjan, Administrative Member
Yogesh Kumar Mewara – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 403/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.B. Sharma
For the Respondents: N.C. Goyal

Compounded penalty combining reduction to lower pay stage and lower time-scale under RS(D&A) Rules Rule 6(v)&(vi) unsustainable; must impose single prescribed penalty. Judicial review limits re-appreciation of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 6 (v) & (vi), Rule 9, Rule 22 - Disciplinary proceedings - Signal passing at danger - Penalty of compulsory retirement modified by appellate authority to reduction from higher grade pay to lower grade pay at minimum stage for specified period with loss of seniority and future effect held as impermissible combination of two major penalties under Rule 6(v) & (vi) - Such compounded penalty not sustainable - Appellate authority directed to reconsider and impose any one penalty prescribed under Rule 6 - Competence of disciplinary authority and preliminary enquiry member acting as authority not interfered with as not raised earlier - Period from compulsory retirement to reinstatement treated as dies-non upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

(B) Judicial review in disciplinary matters - Tribunal/Court not to reappreciate evidence or substitute view unless findings perverse, no evidence, natural justice violated or punishment shocks conscience - Scope limited to procedural compliance and proportionality. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, working as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, overshot red home signal by 91.5 m due to over-speeding and delayed braking - Charge of negligence proved in inquiry - Compulsory retirement imposed, modified on appeal to reduction to lower post/pay at minimum for 4 years with loss of seniority and dies-non period - OA filed challenging proceedings, penalty and dies-non.

Findings of Court:
Impugned appellate order quashed to limited extent of compounded penalty - Respondent No.3/ Appellate Authority directed to issue fresh order imposing single penalty under Rule 6 within 2 months, with consequential benefits within further 6 weeks - No interference with dies-non treatment or other aspects.

Issues: Validity of compounded penalty combining reduction to lower stage and lower time-scale; competence of authorities; treatment of inter-regnum period as dies-non; scope of judicial review in disciplinary findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Combination of two distinct major penalties under Rule 6(v) & (vi) impermissible; judicial review confined to legality/proportionality without re-appreciating evidence; dies-non period upheld per rules where appellate modification reinstates after original penalty.

Result: OA partly allowed with directions.

Table of Content
1. factual background of signal overshoot incident and disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applicant's challenge to disciplinary authority competence and penalty validity. (Para 4 , 5)
3. respondents' defense of inquiry procedure and penalty imposition. (Para 6 , 7)
4. limited judicial review scope in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 8 , 9)
5. no interference with authority competence or inquiry findings. (Para 10 , 11)
6. compounded penalty under rule-6 rs(d&a) rules unsustainable. (Para 12 , 13)
7. dies-non treatment for pre-reinstatement period upheld. (Para 14 , 15)
8. appellate order quashed limitedly; fresh penalty ordered. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

ORDER

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

1.This Original Application is made by the Applicantagainst the impugned appellate order dated 06.06.2013 issued by the Respondent No.3, i.e. the Appellate Authority (A.A.),vide which the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the Applicantpreviously vide the impugned Notice for Imposition of Penalty (N.I.P.) dated 05.10.2012 of the Respondent No.4, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) had been modified – from compulsory retirement to reversion from the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Sr. ALP) in Pay Band Rs.(5200-20200)/- with Grade Pay Rs.2400/- to the post of ALP in Pay Band of Rs.(5200- 20200)/- with GP Rs.1900/-, at the stage of minimum pay for four years, with cumulative effect and with the loss of seniority ; and further also against the period from the Applicant’s compulsory retirement to his reinstatement being treated as Dies-Non.

2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on records of the case, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows, briefly. The Applicanthad joined the Respondent Department, West Central Railway (W.C.R.) on 01.11.2006 as ALP [Pay Band Rs.(5200-20200)/-, GP Rs.1900/-] and was posted in Jaipur Division. He had been allowed mutual transfer to Kota Division in 2009 ; and had further been promoted as Sr. ALP w.e.f. 10.05.2010 [Pay Band Rs.(5200-20200)/-, GP Rs.2400/-]. While he was on duty as Sr. ALP on 02.07.2012from Kota to Sawai Madhopur on Train No.59805, the said train while reaching Gangapur City station had crossed the Red home signal and had stopped 91.5 m thereafter. The matter regarding crossing of Red home signal was preliminarily gone into through Joint Enquiry Committee (JEC) consisting of three Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) Officers, which had concluded vide its Report inter alia – that the main reason for the Train No.59805 having overshot the Red home signal at Gangapur City was over-speeding and delayed application of brake by the Train Driver/LP as well as the non- action by the Assistant Driver during such over-speeding ; and that the LP, one Raja Ram and the ALP, the Applicant were primarily responsible for the same.

3. Subsequently, the charge-Memo dated 16.07.2012 was issued by Respondent No.5, i.e. the Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (ADEE) Kota, under Rule-9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 [the RS(D&A) Rules-1968] for initiating major penalty proceedings against the Applicant/Charged Officer for negligence in performance of assigned duty. The said charge-Memo had included one Article of charge, relating to failure to control the Train No.59805 as per the displayed signals, due to which the Red home signal at Gangapur City was overshot by 91.5 m, which could even have caused a major accident. Later vide Order dated 30.07.2012, the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) had been appointed to conduct the departmental inquiry, and after allowing the defense assistant to the Applicant/CO, the I.O. had eventually conducted the inquiry between 04.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 ; and the final representation dated 08.09.2012 of the Applicant/CO had also been obtained. The I.O. had submitted the Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2012, holding thereby that the charge brought against the Applicant/CO was fully proved.The said Inquiry Report

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