Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Smt Runu Rani Malakar vs N.F.Railway on 18 July, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application 040/00005/2018
Date of order: The 18th day of July, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA,MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRIM.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
On the death of Hem Malakar, his legal heirs,
(1) Runu Rani DasMalakar, Aged 49 Years, Wife
of Late Hem Malakar,
(2) HimangshuMalakar, Aged 27 Years, Son of
Late Hem Malakar,
(3) HirakMalakar, Aged 25 Years, Son of Late
Hem Malakar, and
(4) JuriMalakar, Aged 22 Years, Daughter of
Late Hem Malakar
All are residents of Village & P.O. Bongshar, P.S.
Sualkuchi, District - Kamrup, Assam,
PIN-781103
..........Applicant
VERSUS.
1. The Union of India
Represented by the General Manager,
NF Railway, Maligaon,
P.O. Maligaon, Guwahati- 781 011
(Assam)
2. The Chief Operations Manager, NF
MANOR Digitally signed
Railway, Maligaon,
by
ANJAN MANORANJAN
KUMAR SINHA
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24
SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' P.O. Maligaon,
Guwahati- 781 011 (Assam)
O.A. No. 040/0005/2018
2
3. The Additional Divisional Railway
Manager, NF Railway, Lumding,
P.O. Lumding-782 447,
District Nagaon (Assam)
4. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager,
NF Railway, Lumding,
P.O. Lumding-782 447, District Nagaon
(Assam)
5. The DTI, NF Railway, Lumding,
P.O. Lumding-782 447, District Nagaon
(Assam)
6. The Divisional Operations Manager.
(GENL), NF Railway, Lumding,
P.O. Lumding-782 447, District Nagaon
(Assam)
7. The Divisional Operations Manager, (IC),
NF Railway, Lumding,
P.O. Lumding-782 447, District Nagaon
(Assam)
.........Respondents.
Present:
For applicant(s): Shri C.S. Hazarika
For respondent(s): Shri S. Choudhury, Rly. Adv.
Reserved on 18.06.2025 Order pronounced on 18.07.2025
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA,MEMBER (J)
Instant OA has been filed by the applicant MANOR Digitally signed seeking the following relief(s) :
by ANJAN MANORANJAN KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' "8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash: -
O.A. No. 040/0005/2018 3
(i) the Memorandum of Charge dated 16.12.2013 issued by the Senior Divisional Operation Manager, Lumding Division, NF Railway,
(ii) the enquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Officer, the DTI, Lumding on 21.08.2014 initiated under the aforesaid Memorandum of Charge,
(iii) the penalty order i.e. Notice of Imposition of Penalty dated 16.01.2015 issued by the Sr. Divisional Operation Manager, Lumding Division, NF Railway imposing penalty of removal from service,
(iv) the appellate order rejecting his appeal issued by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, NF Railway, Lumding and communicated to him by the Divisional Operations Manager (General), NF Railway, Lumding on 29.01.2016, and
(v) the revisional order issued by the Chief Operations Manager, NF Railway, Maligaon rejecting his revision petition communicated by the in-charge Divisional Operations Manager, NF Railway, Lumding though letter dated 04.01.2017, (i.e. Annexure A1, A2, A3, A4 & A5 respectively) 8.2 That the respondents be directed to re-instate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.
8.3 Any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from pleadings are that the applicant while serving as Station Superintendent, Phiding under the Lumding Division of the North East Frontier Railway, was suspended vide order dated 10.09.2013 and then served with a memorandum of Charge sheet dated 16.12.2013 issued by the Senior MANOR Digitally by signed Divisional Operation Manager, Lumding Division, NF ANJAN MANORANJAN KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' Railway, containing four articles of charges. The O.A. No. 040/0005/2018 4 allegation of charges was that, on 09.09.2013, the applicant dispatched Train No. 15694 Up Barak Valley Express from Phiding Station by issuing a signal. OPT/369(3b) is issued in this case of signal failure but it was issued on 09.9.2013 without verifying the signal and panel which was in working order. The applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations brought against him and nominating one Sri GG Das as his Defence Counsel/Assistant. Applicant was provided documents containing the rules through his letter dated 17.01.2014. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, applicant submitted his defence brief dated 11.08.2014.
3. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer prepared the Enquiry Report on 21.08.2014, wherein applicant was found guilty of all charges. The applicant, represented against the Enquiry Report vide letter dated 15.12.2014 to the Sr. DOM/LMG and the Sr. DOM/LMG issued the penalty order MANOR Digitally by ANJAN MANORANJAN signed imposing the penalty dated 16.01.2015 removing the KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' applicant from service.
O.A. No. 040/0005/2018 5
4. The applicant appealed against his removal order before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, NF Railway, Lumding vide appeal dated 20.02.2015, however the same was also rejected vide letter dated 29.01.2016. Applicant preferred a Revision Petition against the Appellate Authority's Order dated 10.02.2016 which was also rejected and applicant was communicated vide letter dated 04.01.2017. Hence this OA.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the Railway Authorities deliberately did not examine a single person who actually drew blood from the applicant and in fact there is no proof that the blood which was tested actually belongs to the applicant. No person who actually tested the blood or took the breathalyser test was examinedby the railway respondents during the inquiry. He further submitted that the B.A test report reveals 478 mg/100 mlalcohol even after 5 hours of the incident meaningtherebythe test was not conducted MANOR Digitally by ANJAN MANORANJAN signed immediately so it cannot prove that the applicant was KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' intoxicated during duty as it was taken after 5 hours.
O.A. No. 040/0005/2018 6 Learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgement passed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Union of India and others Vs Ram LakhanSarma (2018) 7 SCC 670 and the Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of MP, in Union of India Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi VsMohd. Naseem Siddiqui, S.P. No. 4874 of 2004 Decided on 08.05.2004.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondents submits that while answering to question Q No. 7 to Q No. 12 during enquiry, the C.O. stated that starter signal was flickering. He did not ascertain the correct setting of points nor examined the point being clamped & padlocked. He did not answer whether Crank Handle was used and made excuses. According to the C.O., he did not have any work and all the works revolve round the Pointsman. That it is stated that the C.O. at the time of performing duty was in an intoxicated condition. Breathe Analysis test and blood sample indicate that he was MANOR Digitally by ANJAN MANORANJAN signed drunken. His B.A. test report reveals 478 mg/100 ml alcohol KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' even after 05 hours of the incident and as per the enquiry O.A. No. 040/0005/2018 7 report of Shri S. Mandal, Divisional TI(LMG, while answering to question no. 23 & 24 of the C.O., he was unconscious due to stomach ache but the fact was that he was drunk at that relevant point of time. He further submits that the OA is devoid of merit hence it may be dismissed.
7. Heard the parties, perused the records and considered the submissions and come to the conclusion that:-
(1) it is admitted by the petitioner that while serving as Superintending Engineer that applicant dispatched train 15694 up Barak Valley Express Train fromPhiding Station by issuing a signal.
(2) It was also not disputed by the parties that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition which has been confirmed by the witnesses as well. Blood sample was examined by the F.S.L. and confirmed the same that due to MANOR Digitally by signed ANJAN MANORANJAN KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' intoxicated condition he acted in the negligent manner that could have lead to a O.A. No. 040/0005/2018 8 big train accident.So, we are of the considered opinion that a person who takes liquor while on duty can act in negligent manner would invite any serious accident and can cause the loss of property and several deaths. So such people are not fit for a sensitive post where the life of General Public is involved.
(3) So the order passed by respondent authority needs no interference and the OA deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (R.S.DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Mks.
MANOR Digitally by signed ANJAN MANORANJAN KUMAR SINHA KUMAR Date:
2025.07.24 SINHA 14:08:49+05'30' O.A. No. 040/0005/2018