Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Lazarus Lunjala vs South Western Railway on 6 January, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00392/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON: 10.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 06.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Sri. Lazarus Lunjala
Aged 48 years,
S/o Sri. Abraham Lunjala,
Technician-III (Fitter),
Chief Workshop Manager,
SSE/Machine Shop,
Personnel Branch,
South Western Railway,
Hubballi: 580 020
Mobile No. 9980601333,
Email: [email protected]
(under orders of removal from service)
Residing at No: 23, Sagar Colony,
Beside Pacific Park,
Kusugal Road, Keshwapur Hubballi: 580 023.
2. Sri. Lunjala David,
Aged 41 years,
S/o Sri. Abraham Lunjala,
Technician GR.I,
Office of Senior Section Engineer / Laundry
Goodshed Road,
Working under Sr.DME/ Co-Ord/Carriage & Wagon
Gadag Road, Hubballi: 580 020
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2026.01.06
15:23:16+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Mobile No. 9901714911
Email: [email protected]
Residing at: 23, Sagar Colony,
Beside Pacific Park,
Kusugal Road, Keshwapur Hubballi: 580 023.
3. Sri. Shashidhar N. Rathod,
Aged 46 years,
S/o Sri. N.H. Lamani,
Senior Clerk,
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Hubballi: 580 020
Mobile No.: 9591475299
Email: [email protected]
Residing at:
Railway Quarter No.:843/D,
Vidyaranya Nagar,
Gadag Road,
Hubballi: 580 020. ... Applicants
(By Advocate Shri P.A. Kulkarni)
Vs.
1. General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubballi: 580 023 for and on behalf of Union of India
Phone No.: 0836-2326000,
Email: [email protected]
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Hubballi Division, Personnel Branch,
South Western Railway,
DRM's Office Compound,
Hubballi: 580 020.
Phone No.: 0836-2346200
Email: [email protected]
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2026.01.06
15:23:16+05'30'
3
OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Chief Workshops Manager
Workshops Hubballi,
South Western Railway
Gadag Road, Hubballi: 580 020
Phone No.: 0836-2345900,
Email: [email protected]
4. Deputy Chief Works Manager
Workshops Hubballi,
South Western Railway
Gadag Road, Hubballi: 580 020
Phone No: 0386-2345902,
Email: [email protected]
5. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Co-Ord),
Carriage & Wagon (C&W),
Mechanical Branch,
South Western Railway,
DRM's Office Compound,
Hubballi: 580 020
Phone No: 0836-2345800
Email: [email protected] ...Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 05.08.2025 for the following reliefs stated in para 8 of the OA:-
"a) Quash / set aside the impugned
(i) Order No: L/P.227/LL/PROD 'D'/DAR, dated 16.05.2025, Annexure-A9, passed by Deputy Chief Workshops Manager, CWM's office, Hubballi mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Workshops, Hubballi Respondent No.4 as against Applicant No.1.
(ii) Order No: H /M .348 / I /Tech-I / C&W / UBL /DAR/July 2025, dated 25.07.2025, Annexure - A6, passed by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Co-Ord), Mechanical Branch, SWR, Hubballi, Respondent No.5 herein as against Applicant No.2 and,
(iii) Order No: H/P.227/XII/2025/D&AR/SNR/01, dated 28.07.2025, Annexure-A7, passed by Divisional Personnel Officer, Personnel Branch, DRM's office Hubballi Railway Division, SWR Hubballi, Respondent No.2 herein as against Applicant No.3.
b) Direct the respondents to restore the applicant no.1 to the position held by him as on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 Ann-A9.
c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It appears from the record that notices Annexure - A5 dated 28.04.2025, Annexure - A6 dated 25.07.2025 and Annexure - A7 dated 28.07.2025 were issued by the respondents under Rule 14(i) of the "Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968" to the Applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Applicant No.1 filed the reply to the notice (Annexure - A8) and thereafter, the order Annexure - A9 was passed by which the Applicant No.1 was removed from service.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE The Applicant No.1 also preferred the departmental appeal Annexure - A10 dated 20.06.2025 which is still pending.
Applicants No. 2 and 3 requested time for filing the reply which was granted by letter dated 13.08.2025. During the final hearing, this fact came into the notice that the reply was filed by Applicants No. 2 and 3 and thereafter, they were also removed from service.
3. At the time of final arguments, it was mainly argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the notices Annexures
- A5, A6 and A7 were issued under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 while the action actually has been taken under Rule 14(ii) of the said Rules.
Therefore, it was mandatory to record the satisfaction in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the matter. It will be useful to mention the relevant portion of the order sheet dated 10.12.2025 which says:-
" Final arguments also heard.
During arguments, it is submitted by both parties that all 3 applicants have been removed by the department. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have also preferred an appeal before the department which is still pending. Applicant No.1 did not prefer any appeal.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Counsel for respondents also raised an objection that without exhausting the available remedies, this petition is not tenable.
On the other side, the counsel for applicants submitted that the action has been taken under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, therefore, it is not necessary to file an appeal.
Arguments also heard upon the aforesaid point. During arguments, the counsel for applicants submitted that Rule 14(i) has been mentioned in the impugned order, while the entire proceedings shows that the action has been taken under Rule 14(ii). Therefore, the recording of reason was necessary why the regular enquiry is not permissible. Final arguments concluded."
3(a). Looking to the record, it appears that Applicant No.1 preferred departmental appeal (Annexure - A10) which is pending. Therefore, it can be said that the learned counsel for the applicant gave the aforesaid information due to some mistake.
Hence, in the order sheet, it has been mentioned that the Applicant No.1 did not prefer any appeal and Applicants No. 2 and 3 preferred the appeals which is pending. Therefore, the matter will be decided by taking into consideration the fact that the appeal has been preferred by Applicant No.1 while, Applicants No. 2 and 3 did not prefer any appeal before the department.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
4. As per applicants' pleadings, a Police case was registered against the applicants and the Trial Court convicted the applicants. Thereafter, they preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court granted the stay upon the execution of "sentence". The respondents department issued the notices and took the step for removing the applicants from service upon the basis of judgment passed by the Trial Court, while the sentence was stayed by the High Court. Hence, in the aforesaid situation, the action was required only under Rule 14(ii) of the said Rules, 1968 and the reasons for satisfaction were required to be mentioned for dispense with the regular inquiry.
5. On the other side, the respondents filed the reply statement on 22.08.2025 and it is submitted that the action has been taken upon the basis of conviction in the criminal case.
There is no any requirement of law to await the result of the appeal preferred by the applicants before the High Court. The "conviction" was not suspended by the High Court, only the "sentence" was suspended. Therefore, the department rightly proceeded under Rule 14(i) of the said Rules, 1968.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
6. The merits of the removal order of Applicant No.1 is not required to be considered at this stage. Removal orders of Applicants No. 2 & 3 are not under challenge in this petition because the aforesaid orders have been issued during pendency of this petition. It has come into notice from the reply filed by the respondents that the services of Applicants No. 2 and 3 were also terminated / removed.
7. If Rule 14(ii) is applicable, then, it was the requirement of law to mention the reasons for satisfaction for dispense with the inquiry, while if the action is taken under Rule 14(i) then there is no any requirement of such nature. Therefore, in the present petition, the only question required to be considered is:-
"Whether the Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 is applicable or Rule 14(ii) is applicable?
8. It is clear from the Judgment Anx. A-1 dated 08.04.2025 passed by "1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad (sitting at Hubballi)" in Session's Case No. 113 of 2012 that all three applicants (No.1- Lajras Lunjal, No.2 - Devid Lunjal & mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE No. 3 - Shashidhar N. Rathod) have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Sr. Convicted under Sec. Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) Imprisonment in Default of Fine 1 S. 143 of IPC 2 Months 1000 10 Days 2 S. 147 of IPC 3 Months 2000 1 Month 3 S. 148 of IPC 6 Months 2000 1 Month 4 S. 307 R/w 149 of IPC 3 Years 10,000 3 Months 5 S. 326 R/w 149 of IPC 2 Years 5,000 3 Months 6 S. 324 R/w 149 of IPC 2 Years 2,000 3 Months 7 S. 323 R/w 149 of IPC 6 Months 2,000 2 Months 8 S. 448 R/w 149 of IPC 6 Months 500 2 Months 9 S. 506 R/w 149 of IPC 2 Years 1,000 3 Months 10 S. 3 of prevention of 1 Year 500 2 Months Damage of Public Property R/w 149 of IPC
9. Against the aforesaid Judgment, all three applicants along with other convicted co-accused filed the Criminal Appeal No. 100243 of 2025 (Anx. A-2) U/s. 374 Cr.P.C. / 415 of BNSS, before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. Along with Appeal an Interim application No. 1 of 2025 (Anx. A-3) under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C./ 430 of BNSS was also filed which was allowed by the High Court on 16.04.2025 and only Sentence has been suspended with some conditions.
10. It is submitted by the applicants that in the notices Anx.
A-5, A-6 & A-7, the "Rule 14(i)" has been mentioned while it should be "Rule 14(ii)" of "The Railway Servants (Discipline mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE & Appeal) Rules 1968". Therefore, Authority was bound to record the reasons of satisfaction that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules". On the other side, the Counsel for respondents submitted that the action was taken upon the basis of conviction in Session's case for criminal offences, therefore, action has been taken under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968.
11. Rule 14 of the 'Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968 provides as follows':
"14. Special procedure in certain cases.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 13--
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules;
The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Railway servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case falling under clause (i) above; Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule."
12. The Railway Servants Rules have been made by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309. Rule 6 specifies the penalties which can be imposed upon a railway servant. These penalties are divided into 'minor penalties' and 'major penalties'. Major penalties include 'removal from service' which is not to be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or railway administration and dismissal from service which is ordinarily to be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or railway administration. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, the President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 on any railway servant. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 states that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 may be imposed on a railway servant by the authorities specified in Schedules I, II and III to the Railway Servants Rules. Rule 9 and 10 prescribe a detailed procedure for imposing major penalties while Rule 11 prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Originally, sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 required that a notice be given to a railway servant mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE informing him of the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him and giving him an opportunity of making a representation on the proposed penalty on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry held under Rule 9. The whole of that sub-rule was substituted by the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1978, to bring sub-rule (5) in conformity with clause (2) of Article 311 as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.
13. Article 311 of the "Constitution of India" reads as under:-
"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.--
(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall not apply--
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final."
14. Rule 16 of CCA Rules says-
"16. Special Procedure in certain cases notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 11 to 15 -
(i) where any penalty is imposed on an employee on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules; or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the employee may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this Rule."
15. In Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
2023[2] S.L.J. {S.C.} 243 = AIR 2023 S.C. 2391 =AIROnline 2023 SC 401 [Civil Appeal No(s). 6301 of 2013] the Supreme Court observed that Rule 16 (iii) of the CCA Rules is in pari materia to clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
16. It is now established principle of law that an inquiry under Article 311(2) is a rule and dispensing with the inquiry is an exception. The authority dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) must satisfy for reasons to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 16(i) Rule 14 of the 'Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968' alongwith Article 311 of 'Constitution of India' and Rule 16 of 'CCA Rules' was considered in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 = 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 = 1985 SCC OnLine SC 178 by Constitutional Bench of five Judges of Supreme Court,. At that time the following part of the provision was not included in Rule 14:-
"Provided that the Railway servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case falling under clause (i) above;"
16(ii). The Supreme Court examines the Challappan case (1976) 1 SCR 783 = (1976) 3 SCC 190, and observed in paras 114 & 115:-
"114. So far as Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 :
1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] is concerned, it is not possible to find any fault either with the view that neither clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) nor clause (i) of Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules is mandatory or with the considerations which have been set out in the judgment as being the considerations to be taken into account by the disciplinary authority before imposing a penalty upon a delinquent government servant. Where a situation envisaged in one of the three clauses of the second proviso to Article 311(2) or of an analogous service rule arises, it is not mandatory that the major penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE should be imposed upon the concerned government servant. The penalty which can be imposed may be some other major penalty or even a minor penalty depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In order to arrive at a decision as to which penalty should be imposed, the disciplinary authority will have to take into consideration the various factors set out in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] . It is, however, not possible to agree with the approach adopted in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] in considering Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules in isolation and apart from the second proviso to Article 311(2), nor with the interpretation placed by it upon the word "consider"
in the last part of Rule 14. Neither Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules nor a similar rule in other service rules can be looked at apart from the second proviso to Article 311(2). The authority of a particular officer to act as a disciplinary authority and to impose a penalty upon a government servant is derived from rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or under an Act referable to that article. As pointed out earlier, these rules cannot impinge upon the pleasure of the President or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, because they are subject to Article 310(1). Equally, they cannot restrict the safeguards provided by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 311 as such a restriction would be in violation of the provisions of those clauses. In the same way, they cannot restrict the exclusionary impact of the second proviso to Article 311(2) because that would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of pleasure under Article 310(1) which has become free of the restrictions placed upon it by clause (2) of Article 311 by reason of the operation of the second proviso to that clause. The only cases in which a government servant can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by way of punishment without holding an inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE are the three cases mentioned in the second proviso to that clause. A rule which provides for any other case in which any of these three penalties can be imposed would be unconstitutional. Service rules may reproduce the provisions of the second proviso authorizing the disciplinary authority to dispense with the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 in the three cases mentioned in the second proviso to that clause or any one or more of them. Such a rule, however, cannot be valid and constitutional without reference to the second proviso to Article 311 (2) and cannot be read apart from it. Thus, while the source of authority of a particular officer to act as a disciplinary authority and to dispense with the inquiry is derived from the service rules, the source of his power to dispense with the inquiry is derived from the second proviso to Article 311(2) and not from any service rules. There is a well-established distinction between the source of authority to exercise a power and the source of such power. The Court in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] was, therefore, in error in interpreting Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules by itself and not in conjunction with the second proviso (at that time the only proviso) to Article 311(2). It appears that in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] the Court felt that the addition of the words "the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit" warranted an interpretation of Rule 14 different from that to be placed upon the second proviso. This is also not correct. It is true that the second proviso does not contain these words but from this it does not follow that when acting under the second proviso, the disciplinary authority should not consider the facts and circumstances of the case or make an order not warranted by them. It is also not possible to accept the interpretation placed upon the word "consider" in mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] . According to the view taken in that case, a consideration of the circumstances of the case cannot be unilateral but must be after hearing the delinquent government servant. If such were the correct meaning of the word "consider", it would render this part of Rule 14 unconstitutional as restricting the full exclusionary operation of the second proviso. The word "consider", however, does not bear the meaning placed upon it in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] . The word "consider" is used in Rule 14 as a transitive verb. The meaning of the word "consider" as so used is given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "To contemplate mentally, fix the mind upon; to think over, meditate or reflect on, bestow attentive thought upon, give heed to, take note of". The relevant definition of the word "consider" given in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is "to reflect on:
think about with a degree of care or caution". Below this definition are given the synonyms of the word "consider" these synonyms being "contemplate, study, weigh, revolve, excogitate". While explaining the exact different shades of meaning in this group of words, Webster's Dictionary proceeds to state as under with respect to the word 'consider':
" 'Consider' often indicates little more than think about. It may occasionally suggest somewhat more conscious direction of thought, somewhat greater depth and scope, and somewhat greater purposefulness."
It is thus obvious that the word "consider" in its ordinary and natural sense is not capable of the meaning assigned to it in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] .
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE The consideration under Rule 14 of what penalty should be imposed upon a delinquent railway servant must, therefore, be ex parte and where the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the penalty which the facts and circumstances of the case warrant is either of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, no opportunity of showing cause against such penalty proposed to be imposed upon him can be afforded to the delinquent government servant. Undoubtedly, the disciplinary authority must have regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case as set out in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 :
(1976) 1 SCR 783] . As pointed out earlier, considerations of fair play and justice requiring a hearing to be given to a government servant with respect to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him do not enter into the picture when the second proviso to Article 311(2) comes into play and the same would be the position in the case of a service rule reproducing the second proviso in whole or in part and whether the language used is identical with that used in the second proviso or not. There are a number of orders which are of necessity passed without hearing the party who may be affected by them. For instance, courts of law can and often do pass ex parte ad interim orders on the application of a plaintiff, petitioner or appellant without issuing any notice to the other side or hearing him. Can it, therefore, be contended that the judge or judges, as the case may be, did not apply his or their mind while passing such an order?
115. The decision in Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] is, therefore, not correct with respect to the interpretation placed by it upon Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules and particularly upon the word "consider" occurring in the last part of that rule and in interpreting Rule 14 by itself and not in conjunction with the second proviso to Article 311(2).
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Before parting with Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] , we may, also point out that that case never held the field. The judgment in that case was delivered on September 15, 1975, and it was reported in (1976) 1 SCR at pages 783 ff [Ed. : Reported in SCC in issue dated July 1 & 15, 1976 at p. 190] . Hardly was that case reported then in the next group of appeals in which the same question was raised, namely, the three civil appeals mentioned earlier, an order of reference to a larger Bench was made on November 18, 1976. The correctness of Challappan case [(1976) 3 SCC 190 :
1976 SCC (L&S) 398 : (1976) 1 SCR 783] was, therefore, doubted from the very beginning."
17. Presently the following portion has been included in Rule 14:-
"Provided that the Railway servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case falling under clause (i) above;"
18. Therefore, looking to aforesaid position of law, it can be said that upon the basis of the conviction in criminal case, department can take action under Rule 14(i) and opportunity should be given for making the representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed. Before issuing the aforesaid notice, Authority should consider the nature of crime in which employee has been convicted. It is not necessary that regular departmental enquiry should be conducted after conviction by the Criminal mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Court. Therefore, Rule 14(ii) is not attracted and Authority was not bound to record the reasons of satisfaction that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules".
19. It appear that in Anx.A-9, the Authority also consider the crime for which applicant has been convicted. It will be useful to refer the Anx. A-9:-
"SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CWM'S OFFICE, Personnel Branch, Hubli Workshops, No.L/P.227/LL/PROD 'D'/DAR Date: 16-05-2025 PENALTY ADVICE Whereas, Shri L Lazarus, Tech-III (Fitter), NPS No. 427ZK060080, Prod 'D' shop of these workshops, has been convicted on a Criminal Charge by Hon'ble the Court of The I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi 08-04-2025. And whereas, the undersigned considered that the conduct of the said Shri L Lazarus, which has led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in Railway Service undesirable and had proposed to impose the penalty of Removal from Service (Vide this office memorandum of even no. dtd: 28-04-2025). Whereas, Shri L Lazarus was given an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty and Shri L Lazarus has submitted his representation dated: 08- 05-2025 on the penalty proposed and it is decided as under, mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "It has come to the notice of the undersigned that Shri L. Lazarus, Tech-III/Fitter/UBLS, has been convicted by the Hon'ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, in Sessions Case No. 113/2012, vide judgement dated: 08-04-2025. The conviction relates to offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 448, 506 read with 149 IPC, and also under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The conviction arises from a serious and violent Incident Involving unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, grievous assault, attempt to murder, and public disorder. The conduct attributed to Shri Lazarus is highly unbecoming of a government servant and has severely undermined the decorum and integrity expected from a Railway employee. These actions amount not only to criminal misconduct but also violate the core values and behavioural standards prescribed under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
On perusal of the conviction order and connected material facts, it is established that Shri Lazarus has committed acts which are in clear violation of the following provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
-Rule 3(1)(i): Failure to maintain absolute integrity.
-Rule3(1)(ii): Failure to maintain devotion to duty.
-Rule3(1)(iii): Engaging in conduct unbecoming of a Railway Servant.
-Rule3(1)(v): Breach of conduct expected in upholding public order, decency, and morality. Rule3(1)(xix): Willful disobedience and defiance of lawful authority. -Rule 7: Participation in demonstrations prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and discipline.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE A Show Cause Notice under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, was issued to Shri Lazarus vide memorandum No. L/P.227/LL/PROD'D'/DAR dated: 28-04-2025, giving him an opportunity to explain why a major penalty should not be imposed upon him based on the conviction. In his reply dated: 08-05-2025, Shri Lazarus submitted that the case arose out of a personal family dispute, and that the conviction is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court. He also stated that the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court has been suspended by the High court under Section 389(1) of CrPC.
The reply has been carefully examined. It is a settled legal position that mere filling of an appeal and suspension of sentence does not nullify the fact of conviction. There is no stay on the conviction itself. As per the rulings of RBE 65/2013 dated 07-2013, and Rly Bd's Lr No. E(D&A) 93 RG6-65 dtd: 06-06-1994, a Disciplinary Authority is legally competent to take action under Rule 14(i) upon conviction by a criminal court, even if an appeal is pending. Suspension of sentence does not alter legal status of conviction, and as such, the administrative consequences must follow. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the nature of the misconduct, the violation of statutory conduct rules, and the fact that the conviction stands legally valid as on date, the undersigned is of the considered view that Shit Lazarus is not fit to be retained in government service. His continued presence in the system is likely to undermine discipline, damage the morale of fellow employees, and send a wrong message in the organization.
Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the undersigned hereby imposes mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the penalty of REMOVAL FROM SERVICE, with immediate effect.
This penalty does not disqualify Shri Lazarus from future employment under the Government of India unless otherwise specified per existing rules, unless otherwise specified.
This order is issued after giving due consideration to all relevant facts and the reply submitted by the charged official, and is passed in the Interest of maintaining integrity, discipline, and the public trust reposed in the Indian Railways".
Accordingly. Shri L Lazarus, Tech-ill, Fitter, NPS No.427ZK060080 in Level-2 of Pay Matrix of Prod 'D' Shop convicted on 08-04-2025 on Criminal Charge by Hon'ble The Court of The I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi is REMOVED FROM SERVICE with effect from 16-05- 2025 (after the close of works).
Shri L. Lazarus is hereby advised that he may under rule 15 & 19 of D&A (RS) Rules 1008, prefer an appeal against these orders to CWM/UBLS provided, (1) The appeal is preferred within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the penalty advice and (11) the appeal shall contain no disrespectful or Improper language.
The receipt of the penalty advice shall be acknowledged by Shri L Lazarus, Tech-III (Fitter), NPS No. 427ZK050080, Prod D Shop.
Signature Name: (Ronak Prateek) Designation of the Disciplinary Authority: Dy. CWM/UBLS"
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
20. It is also submitted by Applicants' Counsel that the High Court granted Stay in the Appeal filed by applicants, therefore judgment of Session's court is not final. In the aforesaid situation, action cannot be taken upon the basis of that Judgment.
We may also examine the position of law in this regard.
21. In the case of Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 3 SCC 377 = 1995 SCC (L&S) 686 = AIR 1995 SC 1364 = 1995 AIR SCW 1360 [24.02.1995] the applicant was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, who convicted the respondent under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in addition to fine of Rs 1000. The applicant filed an appeal before the High Court the Court suspended the sentence imposed. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education issued a notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service in view of his conviction by the criminal court. The show-cause notice expressly recites that inasmuch as the High Court has only suspended the sentence, his conviction is still in force. The notice also recites the nature of the offence for which the respondent was convicted. Soon after receiving the show-cause notice, the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE respondent filed Original Application No. 6851 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the aforesaid show-cause notice. The Supreme Court set-
aside the order of Tribunal and said that merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail, the conviction does not cease to be operative. The more appropriate course in all such cases is to take action under clause
(a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) once a government servant is convicted of a criminal charge and not to wait for the appeal or revision, as the case may be. We may reffered the relevant paras:-
"6. Article 311(2) declares that no person, who is a member of the civil service of the Union or All India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The second proviso, however, carves out three exceptions to the said rule. We are concerned with the first exception mentioned under clause (a). Insofar as it is relevant, the second proviso reads as follows:
"Provided further that this clause shall not apply--
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge."
7. This clause, it is relevant to notice, speaks of "conduct which has led his conviction on a criminal mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE charge". It does not speak of sentence or punishment awarded. Merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail, the conviction does not cease to be operative. .......
8. We need not, however, concern ourselves any more with the power of the appellate court under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that what is relevant for clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is the "conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge" and there can be no question of suspending the conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said government servant- accused has been released on bail pending the appeal.
9. The Tribunal seems to be of the opinion that until the appeal against the conviction is disposed of, action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is not permissible. We see no basis or justification for the said view. The more appropriate course in all such cases is to take action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) once a government servant is convicted of a criminal charge and not to wait for the appeal or revision, as the case may be. If, however, the government servant-accused is acquitted on appeal or other proceeding, the order can always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to had he continued in service. The other course suggested, viz., to wait till the appeal, revision and other remedies are over, would not be advisable since it would mean continuing in service a person who has been convicted of a serious offence by a criminal court. It should be remembered that the action under mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) will be taken only where the conduct which has led to his conviction is such that it deserves any of the three major punishments mentioned in Article 311(2). As held by this Court in Shankar Dass v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 358 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 444 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 242] : (SCC p. 362, para 7) "Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution confers on the Government the power to dismiss a person from service 'on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge'. But that power like every other power has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-parking area should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable when a penalty is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly."
10. What is really relevant thus is the conduct of the government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now, in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by a criminal court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the appellate or other higher court, it may not be advisable to retain such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice.
22. Aforesaid case Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) (Supra) has been relied in K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I. Chandigarh, AIR 2001 SC 3320 = 2001(6) SCC 584 (02.08.2001).
23. Therefore it is not required that Department should wait the result of appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence awarded by trial court. If the applicant convicted by Trial court and the appellate court suspended only the "sentence" not "conviction", than Department can take the action under Rule 14(i) of Rules.
24. Therefore, the respondents did not commit any mistake by issuing the notices Annexures - A5, A6 and A7 under Rule 14(i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and there was no necessity to await the final result of the criminal appeal, because the conviction was not suspended.
Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the aforesaid situation, it is ordered:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.06 15:23:16+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00392/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(a) OA No. 392/2025 is dismissed.
(b) The Departmental Appeals preferred by Applicant No.1 is pending before the respondents department. Applicants No.2 and 3 did not prefer any appeal; therefore, they may also file an appeal before the Competent Authority of the department within a period of 30 days from the date judgment of this Court.
(c) Thereafter, the concerned authority after giving proper opportunity of hearing, will decide all three departmental appeals preferred by applicants within a period of 90 days from the date of receiving the appeal submitted by Applicants No. 2 and 3.
(d) If any appeal is not filed by the Applicants No. 2 and 3 within the aforesaid period of 30 days, then the pending appeal preferred by Applicant No. 1 will be decided within 90 days from the expiry of the aforesaid period of 30 days.
(e) After passing the order in the departmental appeal, the applicants will be free to challenge the aforesaid final orders on merit by filing the appropriate proceedings.
(f) Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2026.01.06
15:23:16+05'30'