[2026:RJ-JP:5811-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2815/2013 P D Chanchalani S/o Shri Dharm Das aged about 66 years, R/o 4/12, S.F.S./Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar (Raj.) retired from the post of AEN (C) NWR, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur through its registrar, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.

2. Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

3. Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

4. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

Per, Ravi Chirania, J:-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal' for short), in Original Application No. 153/2007 (herein after referred as 'O.A.' for short), whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority was not disturbed, rather confirmed and the O.A. was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. O.P. Mishra, are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1971 as a Permanent Way Inspector in the respondent-railway and from 1971 till the age of superannuation on 31.01.2006, no disciplinary proceedings, show cause notices, etc., were ever issued to him, except the one impugned in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was issued an impugned charge sheet dated 19.01.2004 in respect of the vigilance inspection conducted regarding certain material, more specifically 'ballast stack' as received for the repair of the railway track and on account of the fact that serious differences were found in the measurement and the quality of Ballast stack, therefore, the impugned charge sheet was issued to him and one D.C. Yadav.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted his detailed response to the charge sheet and the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be partially proved and submitted his report, however, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings and recorded a Disagreement Note, to which the petitioner submitted his reply as well. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, punished the petitioner and D.C. Yadav in the disciplinary proceedings.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was punished with a reduction to a lower stage by ten (10) stages till retirement, whereas D.C. Yadav, who was issued the same charge sheet, with same charges was punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement. The punishment order dated 30.01.2006 was challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the Appellate Authority did not interfere with the punishment order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Against the above orders the petitioner preferred O.A. bearing No.153/2007 before the learned Tribunal. Before the learned tribunal, it was contended that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner majorly questioned the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment as awarded to him on the ground that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. It was further contended that person D.C. Yadav, who was punished with compulsory retirement, hardly faced any punishment, where as petitioner suffered the severest punishment in comp