The court held that separate departmental enquiries are valid if charges are distinct, and the loss of official documents entrusted to an employee during travel constitutes a failure of official duty, which is not negated by the potential liability of the railway administration.

JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke

The present writ appeal, preferred under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Ki Khand Peeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 , is directed against order dated 14.11.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8247 of 2016, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect, imposed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 02.02.2016 and affirmed by respondent No.2 vide appellate order dated 30.06.2016, has been dismissed.

By way of the present appeal, the appellant has made following prayer:-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Appeal and set-aside the order impugned dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by the writ court while deciding the petition No. 8247/2016 with a further to allow the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Cost of the appeal be awarded.

FACTS

Short facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as Office Assistant Grade-III in July, 1981 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Office Assistant Grade-II in the year 2006. During his service tenure, he claimed to have discharged his duties with sincerity and utmost devotion. In the year 2009, while posted as Office Assistant Grade-II in the office of the Executive Engineer (E.H.T.), Maintenance Division, Motizheel, Gwalior, and while discharging duties in the Establishment Section, the appellant handed over the charge of the Establishment Section to Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Additional Office Assistant Grade-II, on 29.10.2009.

On 28.08.2013, the appellant was travelling from Gwalior to Jabalpur in connection with official work by Train No.12191, Shridham Express, in Sleeper Coach No.S-1, Seat No.39. During the journey, the briefcase carried by him, containing official documents including service books and ACRs of employees, was stolen. In respect of the incident, the appellant lodged an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.220 of 2013 at Railway Police Station, Itarsi, on 29.08.2013. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and a charge-sheet dated 17.09.2013 was issued. The appellant submitted his reply denying the allegations.

At the same time, Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, who had taken over the Establishment Section on 29.10.2009, was also subjected to departmental proceedings in respect of the service book of Shivdayal Das. However, instead of conducting a joint enquiry, separate departmental enquiries were conducted against the appellant and Sunil Kumar Agarwal. Sunil Kumar Agarwal was ultimately inflicted with a minor penalty, whereas the appellant was subjected to the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

The disciplinary authority, vide order dated 02.02.2016, imposed upon the appellant the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the competent appellate authority; however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2016. Thereafter, the appellant assailed the aforesaid orders by filing Writ Petition No.8247 of 2016 before this Court, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2022. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned Writ Court suffers from patent error of law and is based upon an improper appreciation of the material available on record, as it had failed to consider the specific contention of the appellant that the very incident on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated did not constitute misconduct on the part of the appellant. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v