Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sakharam Vitthal Kharatmol vs Western Railway on 2 February, 2026
1
OA No.558/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.558/2025
Dated this Monday the 02nd day of February, 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Sakharam Vitthal Kharatmol
Age: 41 years Occu: Service,
R/at Flat No.1404, Athens Building,
Triveni Laurel, Behind B.K. Birla Public School,
Kalyan (West) Maharashtra 421 301.
Phone: 9867564740.
Email: [email protected]
Aadhar No.818121104168. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Pramod G. Kathane a/w
Shri Aamol Ghure and Shri Krishan Dhero)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through the General Manager
Western Railway, Churchgate,
Mumbai-20.
2. Additional General Manager,
Western Railway, having office at First Floor,
GLO Building, Western Railway Head Quarter,
Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020.
3. Chief Engineer (Works & SD)
Western Railway, having office at PCE Office,
Second Floor GLO Building, Western Railway Head Quarter,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh
Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA No.558/2025
4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Works & SD)
Western Railway, having office at PCE Office,
Second Floor GLO Building, Western Railway Head
Quarter, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Dr. V.S. Masurkar)
Order Reserved on : 01st October, 2025.
Pronounced on: 02nd February, 2026.
ORDER
Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"8.a This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-Engg) dated 02.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 is void ab initio and quash and set aside the same being contrary to Rules, and well settled principle of law.
b. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to desist from conducting hearing of Review/Revision Proceeding on the basis of impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-Engg) dated
02.07.2025 issued under Rule 25 of the Railway Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA No.558/2025 Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 against the Applicant.
c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Original Application this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased stay the effect, operation and implementation of impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-Engg) dated 02.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 under Rule 25 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and further direct the Respondent No. 2 not to initiate hearing of Review Proceeding against the Applicant during pendency of present Original Application.
d. Interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).
e. Any other further order in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted in favor of the Applicants".
2. The facts of the case are that; the Applicant was recruited in Western Railway in the year 2013 as Senior Section Engineer (Works) and was posted at Rajkot, Gujarat, for initial training and apprenticeship. Applicant served as Senior Section Engineer (Works) at Rajkot, Gujarat, during his initial training for a period of one year. Thereafter, in 2014, he was posted at Churchgate, Mumbai, upon completion of training and Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA No.558/2025 apprenticeship. From 2014 to 2022 he continued to be posted at Churchgate, Mumbai. The Applicant further states that even today he is working as Senior Section Engineer (Works), Headquarters, Churchgate, Mumbai.
2.2 The applicant states that on 03rd January, 2022 one Sunil Santu Yadav filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Mumbai, alleging that the Applicant, while work-
ing as Senior Section Engineer (Works), Headquarters, Churchgate, Mumbai, demanded a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/-. He further states that in support of the said complaint, the complainant relied upon a rough transcription of a recorded telephonic conversation allegedly held between the Applicant and the complainant through WhatsApp calls on 03rd January, 2022 and 05th January, 2022. 2.3 The applicant states that based on these allegations, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 decided to initiate a Departmental Inquiry against him. Respondent No. 4 issued a charge-sheet bearing No. SF/5 No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-ENGG) dated 29th Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA No.558/2025 December, 2022, and further, Respondent No. 4, being the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 10th February, 2023 bearing No. SF/7 No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-ENGG), appointed an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into the charge-sheet. The applicant submitted that the Inquiry Officer thereafter conducted hearings and, vide Inquiry Report dated 21st March, 2024 (Annexure A-2), recorded findings holding that Charge No. 1 was not proved; however, a bald finding was recorded under Charge No. 2, opining that the CBI investigation allegedly revealed demand and agreement to accept bribe, and on the principle of preponderance of probability held Charge No. 2 partly proved.
2.4 The applicant further states that Respondent No. 4 thereafter issued a Notice dated 02nd May, 2024 bearing No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-Engg), calling upon the Applicant to submit his Written Statement on the Inquiry Report dated 21st March, 2024. The Applicant states that after considering the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA No.558/2025 documents, Inquiry Report, and his Written Statement, Respondent No. 4 passed its Judgment and Order dated 11th October, 2024 (Annexure A-3) imposing a minor penalty of withholding increment of pay for one year without future effect. The Applicant states that while imposing the minor penalty, Respondent No. 4 recorded clear findings that neither motive to demand bribe was proved--as the relevant NOCs were already issued--nor was any demand raised by the applicant; rather, it was the complainant, who insisted that the applicant accept the bribe. 2.5 The applicant submitted that a bare perusal of the findings recorded by Respondent No. 4 shows that neither demand nor acceptance--both of which are sine qua non for initiating a Departmental Inquiry and for holding a Charged Officer guilty--
were established. The applicant states that therefore he decided to file an Appeal under Rule 18 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, assailing the findings of Respondent No. 4. Applicant filed an Appeal before Respondent No. 3 Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA No.558/2025 challenging the Judgment and order dated 11th October, 2024. He states that Respondent No. 3, being the Appellate Authority, considered the entire record and documents, and recorded clear findings that the charges against the applicant were not established based on the evidence, thereby exonerating the applicant.
2.6 The applicant submits that while exonerating him, Respondent No. 3 examined his service record, including Annual Confidential Reports of the past five years, which clearly reflected that the integrity of the Applicant was beyond doubt. The applicant further states that his service record also revealed that he was awarded for devotion to duty for the years 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. He further states that Respondent No. 3 considered the complainant's own admission that he had no evidence of any demand by the Applicant. Respondent No. 3 also minutely examined the verification proceedings, pre-trap and post-trap panchnamas recorded in the inquiry report, and reached a categorical finding that no demand of bribe was established. The Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA No.558/2025 rough transcription of the recorded calls was also considered, and Respondent No. 3 concluded that no demand emerged from the evidence. Respondent No. 3 also noted that despite eight opportunities, CBI Inspectors remained absent for cross- examination. Based on these findings, the applicant was exonerated vide order dated 03rd April, 2025 in Appeal. 2.7 Applicant states that on 03rd July, 2025 he was served with an impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No. E/DAR/308/2/08(2022) (MJ-ENGG) dated 02nd July, 2025 (Annexure A-1) issued by Respondent No. 2 under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, proposing to review the Judgment and order dated 03rd April, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the Judgment and order dated 11th October, 2024 passed by Respondent No. 4, and further proposing enhancement of penalty to removal from service. 2.8 Applicant states that a bare reading of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 02nd July, 2025 reveals that Respondent Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA No.558/2025 No. 2 intended to invoke the revisional jurisdiction contemplated under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. He further states that Rule 25 mandates prior consultation with the Commission before invoking revisional jurisdiction; however, there is no reference in the Notice regarding such mandatory consultation, rendering the impugned Notice illegal.
2.9 Applicant states that it is now well-settled that the Disciplinary Authority and Competent Authority have exclusive domain over departmental proceedings. In the present case, Respondent No. 4, being the Disciplinary Authority, imposed a minor penalty after considering the Inquiry Report; and Respondent No. 3, being the Appellate Authority, after considering the entire record, categorically exonerated the applicant.
2.10 Applicant avers that in view of these peculiar facts exercising suo-moto revision jurisdiction thereby proposing to enhance the penalty to remove from services is contrary to well Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA No.558/2025 settled principle of law that revision and review jurisdiction being limited in scope cannot be invoked to set aside reasoned findings. He further avers that further revision jurisdiction cannot be exercised routinely for appraisal of findings recorded by disciplinary and competent authority.
3. Respondents filed their reply and contended that the applicant is challenging a show-cause notice dated 02nd July, 2025, issued by the competent Revision Authority, i.e., the Additional General Manager under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, in the present OA filed on 10th July, 2025. The time to reply to the said show-cause notice expires on 17th July, 2025. Simultaneously, on 17th July, 2025, the applicant submitted a representation in reply to the show-cause notice dated 02nd July, 2025. In these circumstances, it is amply clear that the applicant has approached this Tribunal prematurely and without exhausting departmental/statutory remedies. Thus, the present OA is premature and liable to be dismissed with costs. Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA No.558/2025 3.2 It is stated that as per Schedule II of RBE No. 10/2011 (Sr. No. 6) (Annexure-R/2), it is not the Principal Chief Engineer but the Additional General Manager who is the competent Revisional Authority for undertaking revision, at any time, either on his own motion or otherwise, to call for the records of any en-
quiry and revise any order under these Rules (also clarified in MC
67) (Annexure-R/3), when the appeal has been disposed of by a Senior Administrative Grade level officer. 3.3 It is further stated that Respondent No. 2 has issued the show-cause notice under Rule 25 of the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, for 'Revision' and not for 'Review'. Rule 25 of the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, as quoted in the show-cause notice, pertains to 'Revision' and not 'Review'. The power of 'Review' is exclusively vested with the Hon'ble President of India under Rule 25-A of the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 (Annexure-R/4).
3.4 Learned counsel for the respondents further avers that the show-cause notice has been issued by the competent authority Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA No.558/2025 and that the applicant has already filed his reply to it. Therefore, the said statutory authority should be allowed to discharge its lawful duties, and the action is in compliance with the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968. According to Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, unless all statutory/departmental remedies are exhausted by the Railway Servant, the OA is premature. Hence, the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. During the course of hearing, the applicant also submitted written short notes of arguments. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced below:
"....ii. That as per rule 25(1)(v) of Rules of 1968 it is Principal Chief Engineer having Level 15 who is duly empowered to exercise a power of revision including suo-moto power of revision; however, in the present case revisional power has been exercised under Rule 25 by Ld. AGM who is not empowered in case of Applicant as per Rules of 1968, as such impugned Notice dated 02.07.2025 is ex-facie illegal being without jurisdiction and authority of law. The Applicant in this regard relied upon a well settled principle of law that "that where a statute required a thing to be done in a certain way the thing must Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA No.558/2025 be done in that manner and not in other." Thus, in this regard Rule 25 is crystally clear as to who shall exercise a power of revision and grounds upon which it shall lie. (Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor 1936 P.C. 253 and 2014 3 SCC 502).
iii. It is submitted that vide impugned Notice dated 02.07.2025 Ld. AGM proposes to enhance the penalty to removal from service and however said enhancement is in fact contrary to proviso to Rule 6 of the Service Conduct Rule, 1968 wherein it is stated that removal from service or dismissal from service shall be done only when the concerned delinquent employee has found guilty of having accepted bribe or having obtain from any person any gratification. Admittedly, in the present case there is no acceptance of bribe or obtaining any gratification at the instance of Applicant and therefore impugned notice is contrary to Rule 6 of Service Conduct Rules, 1968.
iv. That in its Affidavit in Reply, Respondents did not answer any of the foundational ground raised by, however relying upon Notification dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure R-2) in respect of schedule I and Schedule II provided in the Service Conduct Rules, 1968 as amended and based on the same it is contented that as per Schedule II, item 6 the Ld. Additional General Manager is empowered to exercise suo-moto power of revision under Rule 25. But perusal of Schedule II (amended till date) provides a detail of the Appellate Authority to exercise power as per Rule 4, 7, and 19 of Service Conduct Rules, 1968 and admittedly it does not provide authority who are empowered to exercise power of revision under Rule 25. It is because Rule Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA No.558/2025 25 of Service Conduct Rules, 1968 itself provides details of authorities who are empowered to exercise power of revision. And in present case, Appeal of the Applicant was heard by Ld. Chief Engineer (Works and SD) who is an Officer of Level-14 and there is higher post in his department of Ld. Principal Chief Engineer (it is also called as Principal Head of Department) who is an Officer of Level-15 and thus as per Rule 25(1)(v) it is Principal Chief Engineer (Principal Head of Department) who is a competent to exercise revision power. Hence impugned Notice issued by Respondent No. 1 being contrary to Service Conduct Rule, 1968 is required to be quashed and set-aside.
v. That further, Respondents in their Affidavit in Reply wrongly placed reliance upon Extract of Master Circular 67 (Annexure R-3) as said circular is required to be read in accordance with Service Conduct Rule, 1968.
vi. That Respondents further relies upon Office Circular dated 04.03.2009 (Annexure R-7) which prima facie appears to be issued in respect of Officers governed by Schedule- II and admittedly relates to authorities which are provided under Rule 4, 7, and 19 of Service Conduct Rules, 1968. Further, if it reads, said Office Circular is issued commonly in connection with appeal and revision authority which is contrary to Rule 25 of Service Conduct Rules, 1968. The Service Conduct Rules, 1968 being framed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India stand superior than said Office Circular dated 04.03.2009. Further it also runs contrary well-established Doctrine of Grund Norm explained by Huns Kelson in its Theory of Pure Law Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA No.558/2025 which is well explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi, 2008 4 SCC 720.
vii. That, further Document at Annexure at R 5 was issued by Ld. AGM as Appellate Authority as per Appeal filed by said person and hence has no application in the present case and cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that Ld. AGM has a power of revision.
viii. That Document Annexure at R-6 was issued as per Revision filed by said person and that was not a suo-moto exercise of revisional power by Ld. AGM. But power of Revision was exercise based on Revision Application received by it, which in fact is illegal and hence has no application in the present case and cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that Ld. AGM has a power of revision."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents on record.
6. The fundamental ground raised by the applicant is that the show-cause notice issued for enhancement of penalty in revision has been issued by an incompetent authority. It is the contention of the applicant that the penalty was imposed by the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA No.558/2025 Deputy Chief Engineer (W& SD). The Appellate Authority was the Chief Engineer (W&SD) and, therefore, it was the Principal Chief Engineer who would be the Revisionary Authority in his case, whereas the notice for revision under Rule 25 has been issued by the Additional General Manager.
7. It has been contended that the Additional General Manager is not the competent authority to issue a revision notice, as the applicant does not come under his direct line of control. It is the applicant's contention that the Chief Engineer is an officer of Level-14 and there was a Principal Chief Engineer, who is the Head of the Department in Level-15 and, therefore, the powers of revision would lie with the Principal Chief Engineer. The Additional General Manger is not the competent authority, as the applicant is not in the direct line of control of the Additional General Manager. In support of this contention, the applicant relied on a circular dated 19th June, 1969 with regard to appeal and review action in case of Railway employees transferred to another Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA No.558/2025 Railway/Division, wherein point no.3 states that - review of the disciplinary order in terms of sub-rule (i) and (1) (v) of Rule 25 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 would only lie under whose authority Railway servant is working. An organizational structure chart was also produced by the applicant to show that the hierarchy of different Engineering Divisions in the Head Office reports only to the General Manager and not the Additional General Manager.
8. As against this, the respondents have relied on Notification dated 19th January, 2011 (RBE Estt.No. No.10/2011) to state that the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 Scheduled I and Schedule II were replaced and that the Additional General Manager is the competent authority. The respondents have also relied on the letter dated 04th March, 2009 issued by the General Manager (E) of the Western Railway in respect of Schedule
-II of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 which clarifies that where the disciplinary action is initiated or appeal is Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA No.558/2025 disposed of by the Head of the Department, the Appellate/Revi-
sionary Authority would be the Additional General Manager.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand.
10. We observe that the letter of 04th March, 2009 issued by the General Manager (Western Railway) with respect to clarification Schedule -II of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, does state that where the disciplinary action is initiated or appeal is disposed of by the Head of the Department, the Appellate/Revisionary Authority would be the Additional General Manager. However, the subsequent Notification of 19th January, 2011 replacing the earlier Schedule I and Schedule II, shows that the Additional General Manager is the Appellate Authority only in relation to departments attached to him. This is obvious from Scheduled -II of the Notification dated 19th January, 2011. Subsequent to the issuance of this Notification, no such modification has been carried out in the instructions issued vide Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA No.558/2025 letter dated 04th March, 2009.
11. We, further find that Part-VI (Revision and Review) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968, under Rule 25(i) (v) clearly states that "any other authority not below the rank of Deputy Head of Department in the case of a railway servant serving under his control" (emphasis supplied).
12. Again, in Scheduled I which specifies the authorities empowered to impose penalties and also the corresponding Appellate Authority, indicates that the Appellate Authority is stated to be the next higher authority to whom the authority imposing the penalty is immediately subordinate.
13. All these circulars and rules establish that the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority have to have a direct line of control in case of the charged officer. It is not permitted for the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate or the Revisionary Authority to be one who does not exercise control over the charged officer. Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA No.558/2025
14. The hierarchy chart submitted by the applicant, which has not been controverted by the respondents, shows that the Engineering Departments have their own Head of the Department in the form of the Chief Engineer and Principal Head of the Department in the form of Principal Chief Engineer who report to the General Manager and the Additional General Manager, does not exercise any control over them. Therefore, the Additional General Manager is not in the direct line of control of the applicant. The Revisionary Authority in the case of the applicant would be the Principal Head of the Department i.e., the Principal Chief Engineer or the next higher authority, namely, the General Manager, who is anyway competent to exercise revisionary powers over all employees in his Zone, again as th0ey are in his direct line of con- trol.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the notice for revision issued by the Additional General Manager is without any authority of law. Since the notice dated 02nd July, 2025 has been Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA No.558/2025 issued by the authority not competent, it is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside.
16. The question as to whether, without exhausting the alternative remedy available, this Tribunal can entertain the Original Application was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 107. It has been held thus:
"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) Where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged (see Whirlpool Corporation v.Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 OA No.558/2025 Registrar of Trade Marks. Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC. 11. The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."
17. In the case of L.K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd and Another, (2006) 2 SCC 269, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"19. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a given case although may not entertain a writ petition inter alia on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. Despite existence of an alternative remedy, a writ Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review inter alia in cases where the Court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been a violation of a principle of natural justice or where vires of the act is in question. In the aforementioned circumstances, the alternative remedy has been held not to operate as a bar, [See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1, Sanjana M. Wig (Ms.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242, State of H.P and Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Another (2005) 6 SCC 499]."Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 23 OA No.558/2025
18. These observations clearly show that without availing the alternate remedy, Tribunal can be approached in at least three contingencies, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) Where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
19. In the case at hand, principle no.(iii) is attracted as the notice has been issued without competence and, therefore, the proceedings are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the notice issued by the incompetent Revisionary Authority needs to be interfered with.
20. In view of the above, notice dated 02nd July, 2025 is quashed and set aside. The Original Application is allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (A) Member (J)
dm.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.05 16:17:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0