Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4901
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
K. Sunil B – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966: R.3(1)(ii), R.3(1)(iii)
Headnote
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review - Courts not to re-appreciate evidence or substitute views unless findings based on no evidence or perverse; appellate authority's reduction of penalty shows sympathy - Standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not strict scientific proof. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
Loco Pilot working express train tested positive on breath analyser (52mg/100ml first, 45mg/100ml second) during signing-off; blood sample collected after 3.5 hours tested negative by forensic lab after 11 days. Charged under conduct rules for violating devotion to duty. Inquiry held, charges proved, penalty imposed and modified on appeal/revision.
Findings of Court:
Inquiry conducted per rules with reasonable opportunities; charges proved by oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence including dual positive breath tests; no procedural violation or bias; reduced punishment upheld as sympathetic measure.
Issues: Validity of inquiry for witness examination in absence, ignoring defence documents, non-compliance with rule on questioning at closure, reasoned orders, proportionality of punishment, and scope of judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: Positive breath analyser results provide sufficient basis to prove alcohol consumption charge under departmental proceedings; negative delayed blood report unreliable; limited judicial review upholds findings supported by some evidence absent perversity or natural justice violation.
Result: Original Application dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G Trinadha Rao
For the Respondents: Mr. V Vinod Kumar, Sr. PC for CG
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant challenges disciplinary proceedings for alcohol violation (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. inquiry violations and natural justice breaches alleged (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents defend ba tests and procedural compliance (Para 4) |
| 4. charges proved; inquiry followed natural justice (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. punishment reduced on appeal; no interference warranted (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. limited judicial review in disciplinary matters (Para 9) |
| 7. oa dismissed lacking merits (Para 11) |
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member)
1.By this Original Application, the applicant sought the following relief:
“……to call for records relating to and connected with the Disciplinary proceedings, the penalty order of Compulsory Retirement from service issued in No. N/M/DAR/PAU/KSB/V. 13/15 dated 27.01.2016 by the Disciplinary Authority, order No. SCR/P-NED/433/DAR-Mech/KSB dated 02.02.2017 issued by the Appellate Authority modifying the penalty to that of Reduction to the Lower Post, i.e., from MLP to GLP duly fixing the pay to 3 stages below the present pay in Level -6 of 7th CPC pay matrix Pay band 9300-34800 with GP Rs.4200/-in 6th CPC) for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect with loss of seniority and the order issued in No SCR/P- HQ/425(a)/DAR/LR6/NED/KSB/24/2022 dated 19.05.2022 by the Revising Authority upholding the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority including the Charge Memorandum, Inquiry report declare and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to restore the applicant to the post of Mail Loco Pilot(MLP) as if no punishment was imposed and extend all the consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances and interest of justice.”
2. Facts, in brief, as per the applicant, are as follows:
i. While the applicant was serving as Mail Loco Pilot/ PAU (Purna), he was issued Major Penalty Charge Memorandum No. N/M/DAR/PAU/KSB/V-13/15, dated 4.5.2015, under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1968, proposing to hold an inquiry in respect of the charges set out in the Charge Memo. The Article of charge, against the applicant reads as under:-
“After working of Tr. No 17688 Express from PAU to AWB on date 09.05.2015, found "positive" 52MG/100ML with instrument No A202078 at 10.27 hrs and second time with instrument No A200193 45 MG/100 ML during Breath Analyser check at AWB/Crew Lobby while doing "Off Duty".
You have thus violated Rule 3 (1) of (ii) maintain devotion to duty and (iii) behaved in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966”.
ii. The Applicant denied the charges. The Inquiry Officer (I.O., for short) proceeded with the inquiry in a most biased manner, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The findings of the I.O. are based on assumptions and conjectures, as he completely ignored the defence documents 1 and 2, viz., Alcohol Examination Certificate, issued by the Asst. Chemical Analyser to Government, and Forensic Lab/AWB Report of CCC/PAU's, vide letter No. CCC/PAU/Corress/15, dated 06.10.2015. The evidence of CCC/PAU and the ALPICC disprove the charges, but the I.O. recorded his finding that the articles are proved. The Inquiry Officer played the role of prosecutor in the absence of the Presenting Officer (P.O.), in a biased manner, to somehow prove the charges.
iii. Against the Inquiry Officer’s Report, the applicant/ C.O. had submitted his representation, dated 01.01.2016, to the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.), bringing out various infirmities in the conduct of the inquiry. The I.O. had recorded the depositions of the witnesses in the inquiry in the absence of the applicant, contrary to law, thus, depriving him of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He completely ignored the Alcohol Examination Certificate of the Asst. Chemical Analyser to the Government, Regional F
