Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jitendra Kumar vs General Manager, N E Rly on 2 March, 2026
1
Reserved on 06.11.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Original Application No.1108 of 2016
Allahabad this the 2nd day of March, 2026
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Jitendra Kumar S/o Sri Awadhesh Rai, Working as Gateman at Gate No. 257-A,
Under Senior Section Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly
City.
.............Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar,
Bareilly.
3. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Line) North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar,
Bareilly.
4. The then Senior Section Engineer/Section Engineer (P. Way), North
Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly City.
5. Sri Netra Pal Singh (Inquiry Officer), Senior Section Engineer
(P.Way/R.E.M.), North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
. . . . . . . . . Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Atul Kumar Shahi
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A) Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 2 "(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned punishment order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the (Line), Nagar, Assistant Divisional Engineer North Eastern Railway, Bareilly-respondent no. 3 Izzat i.e. the disciplinary authority as well as appellate order dated 01/06.08.2014 passed by the same authority i.e. respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 to this O.A. with Compilation No. 1).
(ii) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents to allow the annual regular increment of the applicant with all consequential of benefits and also paid the arrears withheld increment along with market rate of interest.
(iii) To issue any order or direction, which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the Application to the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant are that the applicant who was working on the post of Gateman at Gate No. 257-A under the Senior Section Engineer (P. Way), North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, was served a charge-sheet (SF-5) on 17.06.2013. He submitted a reply on 02.07.2013 denying all allegations. Sri Netra Pal Singh, Senior Section Engineer (in short S.S.E., P. Way), Bareilly was appointed as Inquiry Officer who obtained a statement from Assistant Driver Santosh Kumar regarding the incident of 08.06.2013. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.05.2014, concluding that the charges were proved, leading to imposition of penalty on the applicant by the disciplinary authority on 04.06.2014. The applicant filed an appeal on 30.06.2014, but it was allegedly not forwarded to the appellate authority and was rejected by the disciplinary authority itself. The applicant contends that the charges could not be proved as no medical examination was conducted to establish intoxication, nor was the Chief Mechanical Engineer examined, rendering the Inquiry report defective and the punishment order is liable to be quashed. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present original application.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it has been stated that the applicant, is a Gateman at Gate No. 257/A under the Senior Section NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 3 Engineer (P. Way), Izzatnagar, who was on duty on 08.06.2013 during a night inspection by the Chief Safety Officer, Gorakhpur. During inspection, the applicant was allegedly found sleeping with the gate open and the signal at red, forcing the Assistant Loco Pilot of Train No.52217 to stop, blow the horn, and personally wake the applicant so that the gate could be closed and the signal set right. Based on the inspection report, a charge-sheet was issued on 17.06.2013. The applicant denied the charges in his reply dated 02.07.2013, but the Inquiry Officer later found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one annual increment for five years with cumulative effect, communicated on 04.06.2014. The applicant appealed on 30.06.2014, but the Appellate Authority upheld the punishment, informing him on 06.08.2014.
4.1 The applicant was on morning shift duty on 07.06.2013 (6.00 AM to 18.00 AM) but when the reliever did not arrive to relieve him, he was asked to continue the duty. The correct fact is that the Assistant Loco Pilot found the gateman sleeping. Further during the Inquiry, the Inquiry officer found the charges leveled against the applicant as correct and that the inquiry was conducted fairly in accordance with rules. The statement of Loco Pilot who was an eye witness was duly considered during Inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The applicant was given full opportunity to defend himself and the Inquiry officer has not concluded the Inquiry in hurry manner. The orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities are lawful, justified, and liable to be confirmed by this court. The applicant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the original application and as such the original application is liable to the dismissed.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant, he has reiterated his averments and submitted that he has completely established his case in his favour. In addition, it has been submitted that the charges could not be proved during Inquiry, which is evident from the enquiry report dated 08.05.2014. But NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 4 the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned punishment order even without issuing the disagreement note to the applicant and without giving opportunity of hearing which is mandatory under Rule 10(2) of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968).
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the written submissions stating that the applicant was served with a charge-sheet alleging that during an inspection on 08.06.2013, conducted by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, he was found sleeping in an intoxicated condition and the gate was open. However, in the list of documents, a letter dated 13.06.2013 was mentioned instead of the original inspection report dated 08.06.2013, and the main witness, the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer who conducted the inspection, was neither examined nor produced during the departmental inquiry to prove the report. The inquiry was conducted casually, and the report was only one page long. Although statements of the Loco Pilot and Assistant Loco Pilot were recorded, they did not support the allegations. The applicant argues that without examining the main inspecting officer, the inspection report was not properly proved and its authenticity is doubtful. The disciplinary authority passed an order on 04.06.2014 withholding his annual increment for five years with cumulative effect. He filed an appeal on 30.06.2014 before the appellate authority at Headquarters, North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, but no detailed or reasoned order was communicated to him; instead, a one-line order stating that the punishment was maintained was issued by another officer. The applicant also states that no breathanalyzer test was conducted to prove intoxication and that he was not given the mandatory opportunity to submit his defence against the inquiry report as required under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. He contends that the punishment and appellate orders are illegal, unreasoned, and against the rules, and, therefore, should be set aside.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 5
7. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their written submissions stating that the respondents state that the punishment of withholding the applicant's annual increment for five years is legal and proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. They submit that the applicant was on duty in the morning shift on 07.06.2013 and, even if his reliever did not arrive, he was required to continue performing his duties properly. According to them, the Assistant Loco Pilot found the gateman sleeping during duty hours, and the Loco Pilot also gave a statement as an eyewitness. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry as per rules, considered the statements and all material facts, and found the charges proved. The applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself and was heard during the proceedings, but he failed to prove his innocence. The disciplinary and appellate authorities passed the punishment orders in accordance with the rules and in proportion to the misconduct. The respondents rely on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and others vs Subrata Nath decided on 23.11.2022, where the Court upheld strict punishment for gross negligence and dereliction of duty, to support their case. They therefore pray that the Original Application be dismissed.
8. Submissions of both the parties have been heard and records as well as the written submission have been gone through.
9. It is noted from records that the applicant was issued the chargesheet on 17.06.2013 under Rule 9 of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the following article of charges:-
आयोऩों का विियण अनुफन्ध - I श्री जितेन्द कुभाय ऩुत्र अिधेश याम गेटभैन 257 ऐ आधीन सी० सॊक्शन इन्िीननमय (ऩीिे) इज्ितनगय के विरम्ि प्रस्तावित कदाचाय / अिचाय के आयोऩो का सॊक्षऺप्त विियण ।
श्री जितेन्द कुभाय ऩुत्र अिधेश याम गेटभैन 257 ए आधीन सी० सेक्शन इन्िीननमय (ऩीिे) इज्ितनगय ने गेटभैन के ऩद ऩय कामययत यहते हुए मह कदाचाय/अिचाय ककमा कक उऩ भुमाई द्िाया ददनाक 08.06.2013 को ननयीऺण के दौयान ऩामा कक गेट खुरा हुआ था औय NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 6 आऩ नशे की हारत भें सोते हुए ऩामे गमे िो कक एक " गबीय कदाचाय/अिचाय है ।
इस प्रकाय श्री जितेन्द कुभाय ऩुत्र अिधेश याम गेटभैन 257 ने ये र सेिा आचूय्ण ननमभ तीन के साभान्म ननमभ 3(1) (1) का उल्रॊघन ककमा है ।
10. In the list of documents and witnesses on the basis of which the charges against the applicant was proposed to be proved only the letter of Post master General/Suraksha dated 13.06.2013 has been mentioned. However, this letter dated 13.06.2013 was submitted alongwith the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents.
11. The departmental Inquiry was conducted as per rules by the Senior Section Engineer, Badayun whose findings have been recorded without any analysis of evidences adduced during the inquiry. The report of the inquiry officer is reproduced as under:-
" िाॊच रयऩोटय
कभयचायी ऩय रगाए गए आयोऩ
श्री जितें द्र ऩुत्र ऩुत्र अिधेश याम गेटभैन 257 A अधीन सी सेक्शन इॊिीननमय (ऩीिे) इज्ितनगय ने गेटभैन के ऩद ऩय कामययत यहते हुए मह कदाचाय अिचाय ककमा कक उऩभुथाईo द्िाया ददनाॊक 8.6.2013 को ननयीऺण के दौयान गेट खर ु ा हुआ ऩामा गमा औय तथा आऩ नशे की हारत भें सोते हुए ऩाए गए िो कक एक घोय कदाचाय/अिचाय है तथा एक ये र सेिक के लरए अशोबनीम कृत्म है आयोऩ के सॊफॊध भें साऺम
1. भहाप्रफॊधक (सयु ऺा) गोयखऩयु का ऩत्राॊक सॊख्मा/257/भख् ु मारम/ननयीऺण/1H2 ददनाॊक 13.6.2013
2. DAR फ़ाइर भें ऩष्ृ ठ सॊख्मा 42 ऩय क्रू कॊट्रोरय डीिर रॉफी फये री लसटी द्िाया सत्मावऩत प्रनत
3. रोको ऩामरट श्री शभशेय फहादयु का फमान ऩेि सॊख्मा 65 भ 66 ऩय
4. सहामक रोको ऩामरट श्री सॊतोष कुभाय का फमान ऩेि सॊख्मा 68 ऩय
5. सीसेई/ऩीिे/इज्ितनगय का फमान ऩेि सॊख्मा 74 ऩय आयोवऩत कभयचायी द्िाया प्रस्तुत फचाओ प्रनतिेदन (1) ऩेि सॊख्मा 8 ऩय (2) आयोवऩत कभयचायी का फमान ऩेि सॊख्मा 77 ऩय िाच ननष्कषय उऩयोक्त सबी तथ्मों का अिरोकन कयने के ऩश्चात अधोहस्ताऺयी इस ननष्कषय ऩय ऩहुॊचा की कभयचायी श्री जितें द्र कुभाय ऩुत्र अिधेश याभ का गेट 257 NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 7 इनकी ड्मूटी कामयकार भें खर ु ा हुआ था मह अऩनी ड्मूटी ऩय सतकय नहीॊ ऩाए गए िो ये र सुयऺा की दृजष्ट से राऩयिाही है कृऩमा आऩको अिरोकनाथय प्रेवषत"
12. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of Inquiry officer and imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect for a period of five years. The observations of the disciplinary authority read as under:-
"श्री जितेन्द्र कुभाय ऩुत्र श्री अिधेश याम गेटभैन 257 ए अधीन सो० सॊक्शन इन्िीननमय (ये रऩथ) इज्ितनगय को उऩ भुख्म माॊत्रत्रक इन्िीननमय (आय०एण्ड०एप०) गोयखऩुय के ददनाक 08.06.2013 का गाडी सख्मा 52217 अऩ के ननयीऺण के दौयान मह ऩामा गमा कक इनका गेट खर ु ा हुआ था तथा गेटभैन सो यहा था जिसके लरमे इन्हें इस कामायरम द्िाया ददनाक 17.06.2013 को दीघय दण्ड ऻाऩन िायी ककमा गमा था जिसका कभचायी द्िाया नननाक 02.07.2013 को फचात प्रनतिेदन ददमा गमा था अनश ु ासननक अधधकायी द्िाया ऻात प्रनतिेदन से सन्तष्ु ट न होने के कायण इस केस की िाॉच कयने हे तु सी० सेक्शन इन्िीननमय (ये रऩथ) फनामे को िाॉच अधधकायी ननमक् ु त ककमा गमा था िाॉच अधधकायी की िॉच यऩट का अिरोकन कयने एि ददनाक 08.06.2013 का गाडी स0-52217 अऩ के सहामक रोको ऩामरट श्री सन्तोष कुभाय ( डीिर रागी) फयरा लसटी क ददनाक 10.04.2014 के लरखखत फमान एि श्री शभशेय फहादयु रोको ऩामरट के फगान का अिरोकन कयने से मह स्ऩष्ट हो िाता है कक श्री जितेन्द्र कुभाय ऩुत्र अिधेश याग का गर स0-257 ए इनके डडमूटी अिधध भें खर ु ा हुआ था तथा अऩने डडमूटी से सतक नहीॊ ऩाग गने तथा डाइिय के द्िाया आिाि दे ने ऩय मह उठे तथा उन्होंने गेट फन्द कयने को कहा जिस ऩय श्री जितेन्द्र कुभाय ने गेट फन्द ककमा कपय गाडी चरी जिससे स्ऩष्ट है कक कभयचायी श्री जितन्त कुभाय अऩनी ये र डडमूटी के प्रनत राऩयिाह थे तथा ये र सयऺा की दृजष्ट से िा एक गम्बाय कटाचाय अिचाय है , सुयऺा के प्रनत घोय राऩयिाही है ।
अत् इनके डी०ए०आय० केस एि गिाहों के फमान का अिरोकन कयते फुगे अधोहस्ताऺयी द्िाया अनुशासननक अधधकायी की है लसमत से सहानुबूनतऩूिक य ननत्ताय कयते हुए ननम्न आदे श ऩारयत ककमे िाते है । कभयचायी की आगाभी िेतन िवृ ि ऩाॉच िषय के लरमे स्थामी रूऩ से फन्द की िाती है ।
13. The applicant again submitted his appeal which was disposed of by the appellate authority on 01/06.08.2012. The appellate order reads as under:-
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 8 "विषम्- दीघय दण्ड ऻाऩन ददॊनाक 17.06.2013 के दण्ड आदे श ददनाक 04.06.2014 के विरूि के अऩीर के सम्फन्ध भे ।
सन्दबय आऩकी अऩीर ददॊनाक 30.06.2014 आऩने अऩने दीघय दण्ड ऻाऩन ददनाक 17.06.2013 के दण्ड आदे श ददनाक 04.06.2014 के विरूि भण्डर इन्िीननमय (भुख्मारम) इज्ितनगय भहोदम को अऩीर प्रेवषत की है उस ऩय अऩीरीम अधधकायी द्िाया ननम्न आदे श ऩारयत ककमे गमे है ।
"िायी ककमा गमा दण्ड मथाित यखा िाता है आऩको सूचनाथय प्रेवषत "
14. A simple perusal of inquiry report indicates that the inquiry officer has not done any analysis of the evidence adduced during inquiry and has enclosed the letter of General Manager, Gorakhpur and some other documents with his inquiry report. No analysis of the evidence is available and only conclusion of the inquiry officer has been mentioned.
15. Similarly only one line order has been passed by the Appellate authority that "िायी ककमा गमा दण्ड मथाित यखा िाता है" Even in annexure CA-2 provided alongwith the counter affidavit (which is a copy of internal note put up to the appellate authority) the Appellate Authority has recorded that "िायी ककमा गमा दण्ड मथाित यखा िाता है "
16. Normally the courts do not re-evaluate the evidence adduced during the inquiry and do not interfere in the decisions of disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. But it is definitely expected from the competent authorities that they follow the rules, regulations and principles of natural justice in discharge of their duties assigned in departmental inquiries.
17. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiries is essential to ensure fair disciplinary proceedings, so that no one is punished NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 9 without being heard and the decision makers are impartial and without any bias. Therefore, decision by a reasoned and speaking order at all the levels i.e. at the level of Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority must disclose the reasons for their findings. In this case the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is not based on any analysis of evidence which has formed the basis of decision of the disciplinary authority. The findings of the inquiry officer, orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities are not at all reasoned and speaking orders based on any analysis of evidence adduced during the course of inquiry, and are not as per provisions of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,1968. As per Rule 9(25) (i) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,1968, the inquiry report must contain the following:-
(a) the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(b) the defence of the Railway servant in respect of each article of charge;
(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; and
(d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor.
18. Similarly the order passed by the appellate authority is not at all a speaking order.
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the impugned orders dated 01/06.08.2014 (Order of Appellate Authority), 04.06.2014 (Order of disciplinary authority) and report of Inquiry Officer dated 08.05.2014 are liable to be set aside and are, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to remit the case back to the inquiry officer under Rule 10 of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 to conduct proper inquiry and submit his report as per provisions of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Disciplinary Authority will, thereafter pass his reasoned order within a period of two months after NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 10 following due procedure as laid down in Rules. The instant Original Application is, accordingly, partly allowed. No order as to costs.
20. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
/Neelam/
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH
11
13. Since the charge has been proved during Inquiry after following due procedure, no interference is required in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority or the revisionary authority.
14. It is settled principle of law that in Original Applications, challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re- appreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the Inquiry. The Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held as under :-
"The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice".
15. In a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723, Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279-1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 12 Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re- appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the Inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH