Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anita Rani vs M/O Railways on 10 September, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.239 of 2021
Orders reserved on : 28.08.2025
Orders pronounced on : 10.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Smt. Anita Rani
Designation: OS/Time Table
Presently posted at:
Time Table Section,
Northern Railway, Baroda House
New Delhi-110001
Group-C Age: 51 years
W /o Sh. Hira Lal
R/o F-342, Gali No.23, Sadh Nagar
Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110075.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.C. Sagar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Ministry of Railway
Through Secretary
Railway Bhawan
New D elhi-11000 1.
2. General Manager (Comm)
Northern Railway
Railway Headquarters
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
3. Dy. CME (O&F)
Operating Branch
Northern Railway
Railway Headquarters
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma)
2025.09.12
RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30'
Item No.21/C-2 2 OA No.239/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Set aside the impugned Memorandum/ Article of Charge dated 6.2.2019 served upon the Applicant;
ii) Set aside the impugned order 14.5.2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority /Respondents awarding the minor penalty to the Applicant;
iii) Set aside the· impugned order 6.8.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority /Respondents upholding the impugned order dated 14.5.2019;
iv) Set aside the impugned order 27.11.2020 passed by the Revisional Authority/Respondents upholding the impugned order dated 14.5.2019 and 6.8.2019;
v) Pass such other order or further order/ orders as this Hon 'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The Applicant, while working as OS/Time Table at Baroda House, New Delhi was served a Memorandum dated 6.2.2019 by the respondents on the alleged allegation that she had denied to receive the Office Order, which showed ignorance and negligence towards her duty and found in violation of Sub Para (ii) & (iii) of Para No.3.1 of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 proposing a minor penalty under Rule 2 of Railway Services (Discipline & Appeal), Rules 1968. The applicant filed her reply dated 15.2.2019 to the said Memorandum (Annexure A-5).
2.1 The Respondents/Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 14.5.2019 (Annexure A-2) imposing a minor penalty of withholding of increment of pay for period of one 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 3 OA No.239/2021 year without affecting the postponing of future increment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order, the applicant filed an appeal on 26.6.2019 under Rule 19 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (Annexure A-12). The Appellate Authority after considering the said appeal passed the impugned order dated 6.8.2019 upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2.2 Thereafter, the respondents issued an official Notice dated 10.7.2019 stating that during the penalty period, the applicant will draw the pay scale Rs.55,200/- in L-6-6 w.e.f. 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2020 and Rs.58,600/- in L-6 w.e.f. 1.7 .2020. However, the same has not been placed on record by the applicant while filing the instant O.A. 2.3 The applicant has also filed a Revision Petition on 7.10.2019 under Rule 25(a) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 against the above impugned orders (Annexure A-14).
2.4 When the said revision petition was not decided by the respondents, the applicant filed Original Application being OA No.1519 /2020, titled Anita Rani vs. UOI & Anr., before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2020 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said Revision Petition of the applicant (Annexure A-16). However, the Revisional Authority has passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure A-4) upholding the impugned orders dated 14.5.2019 and 6.8.2019. Hence, this OA.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their replies opposing the claim of the 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 4 OA No.239/2021 applicant. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent no.3.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned orders dated 14.5.2019, 6.8.2019 and 27.11.2020 are not speaking and reasoned orders, as the defence raised in the applicant's Reply, Appeal and Revision Petition has not been considered, which prima facie shows denial of fair hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. 4.1 Learned counsel also argued that the Article of Charge dated 6.2.2019, issued under Rule 11(2) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, is vague and unsupported by documents. The charge fails to specify which order was allegedly refused, who issued it, and on what basis refusal was attributed to the applicant. The applicant had submitted a detailed reply on 15.2.2019 denying the allegations, as the charge was framed on assumptions without evidence, contrary to DoP&T and CVC guidelines requiring charges to be clear and comprehensible. 4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant also requested supply of the relevant office order to enable an effective defence, but this was denied vide communication dated 15.5.2019. In her appeal dated 26.6.2019 and revision petition dated 4/7.10.2019, the applicant had reiterated this grievance. Thus, she was deprived of her right to defend herself, which is in breach of principles of natural justice.
4.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned punishment order dated 14/15.5.2019, passed by Dy. CME (O&F), is a non-speaking order, contrary to Railway Board's instructions 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 5 OA No.239/2021 (Order dated 20.9.2009, Circular No. 02.05.2014, and OM dated 22.8.2005), which mandate reasoned and speaking orders even in minor penalty proceedings.
4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that as per Master Circular No.67, final orders of DA/AA must be reasoned and address the defence of the charged official. This was not done. Instead, the penalty was imposed in an arbitrary and biased manner, violating both procedure and principles of natural justice. 4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 6.8.2019, mechanically upheld the DA's order without recording reasons, further compounding the illegality. Even the comments returned by the respondents dated 26.7.2019 failed to specify which order was refused or by whom, showing that the case is based on "no evidence." The AA also ignored mandatory provisions of Master Circular No.67 requiring proper consideration of facts, evidence and representation. 4.6 Learned counsel pointed out that subsequent events also show arbitrariness. Through RTI, the applicant obtained copy of the order dated 6.2.2019, which referred to her as OS/Fuel, despite her transfer to RS Section in 2016. No written order from the competent authority was ever served; instead, remarks were made in absentia. Rule 3 of Railway Conduct Rules requires oral orders to be confirmed in writing, which was not complied with. 4.7 Learned counsel also argued that the applicant's Revision Petition remained pending for more than a year and was decided only after Tribunal's intervention in OA No.1519/2020, leading to the impugned order dated 27.11.2020. This undue delay also reflects arbitrariness and denial of speedy justice.
2025.09.12
RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30'
Item No.21/C-2 6 OA No.239/2021
4.8 Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the
applicant's unblemished service of over 26 years, with consistent devotion and integrity. Her APARs for 2017-18 and 2018-19 were graded "Very Good," confirming her eligibility for MACP benefits. REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. By referring to the averments made in the reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was working in the Fuel Section of operating - branch, headquarter office under the control of Dy. CME/ O&F till 30.05.2019. On 06.02.2019, Office Order was issued to the applicant with a direction to work in Fuel Section in place of Smt. Sadhana Kapoor, who has taken VRS on 31.01.2019 but the applicant had flatly refused to receive the said order dated 06.02.2019. 5.1 Learned counsel argued that as per the Rule 3.1 (ii) (iii) of Railway Servant (Conduct) Rule, 1966, the conduct of the applicant is unwanted and cannot be acceptable. Therefore, competent authority issued charge sheet for minor penalty, i.e., SF-11 to the applicant on 06.02.2019. The applicant submitted her explanation/WS on 15.02.2019 in reference to the aforesaid charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority after due considered her explanation/WS, passed the speaking order dated 14/15.05.2019 whereby Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of increment of pay for period of one year without cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said penalty order dated 14/15.05.2019 before COM/General, i.e., Appellant Authority but the Appellant Authority rejected her appeal vide order dated 06.08.2019 and upheld the decision of Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the applicant filed Revision 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 7 OA No.239/2021 Petition against the order passed by the Appellant Authority, before the Principal COM/Revisionary Authority. The said Revisionary Authority considered all factors and passed a detailed speaking order dated 27.11.2020, which is in accordance with the rules and after following the due procedure. As such, the present OA being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
REJOINDER
6. The applicant besides reiterating the contents of the OA and refuting the averments of the reply filed by the respondents, has further submitted that after getting over the punishment, the applicant has also been promoted to the next post of Chief Office Superintendent (Grade Pay Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.04.2022 instead of 19.3.2011 (other junior staff was promoted as Chief Office Superintendent.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings available on record. ANALYSIS
8. Since this matter pertains to departmental proceedings, we deem it apt to observe that it is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 8 OA No.239/2021 Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. The Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
8.1 In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2 In another case in the matter of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 9 OA No.239/2021
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
8.3 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority............"
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103] .
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 10 OA No.239/2021 could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
(emphasis supplied)
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) 8.4 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 11 OA No.239/2021 the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
9. By keeping in mind the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals in the matters of disciplinary proceedings and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted hereinabove, we observed that the respondents have categorically stated that an office order dated 06.02.2019 was issued vide which the applicant was directed to work in the Fuel Section (in place of Smt. Sadhana Kapoor) and the applicant "flatly refused to receive" that Order. The pleading read together with the departmental notice and contemporaneous entry on file, identifies the subject-matter, date and essence of the allegation, namely, refusal to accept a transfer/duty direction, which is adequate to enable the charged official to know the case against her and to formulate a defence in a minor-penalty SF-11 proceeding initiated by the respondents on the very same day when the said order dated 6.9.2019 was issued and the applicant refused to accept the same. This fact is very much evident from the page 41 of the paperbook of the OA in which the signature of the applicant was obtained by the concerned authorities. It is not 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 12 OA No.239/2021 the case of the applicant that the signature appearing at page 41 of the OA is a forged one. Meaning thereby that the allegation is sufficiently specific and supported by records, thus meeting the requirement of natural justice for informing the applicant of the charge in a minor penalty proceeding. It is apt to mention that in minor penalty proceedings, the requirement is that the charge be framed so the official concerned can meet it and the departmental record identifies the relevant office order and the time/place of the alleged refusal, the charge cannot be treated as a nullity.
10. Further, we find that the applicant filed an explanation dated 15.02.2019 in response to the aforesaid SF-11 charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority then passed an order dated 14/15.05.2019 imposing the above mentioned minor penalty. The respondents averred that the Disciplinary Authority considered the applicant's explanation and recorded reasons in the penalty order. Where the charged official has actually filed a written explanation and the Disciplinary Authority has recorded findings after considering it, the mere fact that the applicant characterises the order as "non-speaking" does not automatically render it infirm. The correct inquiry is whether the Disciplinary Authority applied its mind; the respondents averred that it did.
11. The applicant contended that she was denied supply of the said Office Order. The respondents, however, pleaded that the relevant office order dated 06.02.2019 and the departmental entries concerning refusal were part of the record and that the applicant's own connection with the posting/attendance was known to her as is evident from page 41 of the paperbook.
2025.09.12
RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30'
Item No.21/C-2 13 OA No.239/2021
12. Even if there was a technical lapse in furnishing a copy, the applicant has not demonstrated concrete prejudice, i.e., she has not shown that access to the physical copy would have allowed her to raise a defence which she otherwise could not. The applicant filed a substantive reply on 15.02.2019 which addressed the core factual issue, i.e., receipt/refusal and, therefore, the applicant had the real opportunity to defend herself.
13. We have also carefully perused the orders passed by the Appellate and the Revisionary Authorities and find that both the Appellate Authority considered the aforesaid appeal of the applicant and confirmed the Disciplinary Authority's order on 06.08.2019; thereafter the Revisionary Authority examined the revision petition preferred by the applicant and passed a detailed order dated 27.11.2020 after considering the matter. The respondents expressly stated that the Revisionary Authority's order is a speaking one and that it addressed the relevant facts and submissions. A combined reading of the aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisionary Authorities show that the matter was reviewed at successive levels; where a Revisionary Authority has considered facts and passed a reasoned order, the administrative process cannot be lightly set aside.
14. So far as the applicant's contention that her revision petition was disposed of after the Tribunal's direction in the aforesaid OA is concerned, since the Revisionary Authority has since its order, delay alone does not mandate setting aside of departmental findings unless the delay has caused demonstrable prejudice or the conduct of the administration is so mala fide or negligent as to subvert justice. The applicant has not put on 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 14 OA No.239/2021 record any specific prejudice caused by the delay apart from general inconvenience. It is admitted fact that the Revisionary Authority ultimately considered the revision and issued a speaking order cures the temporary delay.
15. It is apt to mention that the punishment imposed, i.e., withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, is a recognised minor penalty under the Rules and falls squarely within the disciplinary matrix for misconduct of the kind alleged. Having regard to the nature of the alleged misconduct, i.e., refusal to accept an office order/directive, such a penalty cannot be said to shock the conscience or to be manifestly disproportionate as a matter of law.
16. It is further relevant to note that the applicant's long service and subsequent promotion are relevant mitigation factors the authorities may have borne in mind; the fact that she was later promoted demonstrates that the departmental machinery was not permanently prejudicial to her career and that the penalty was not of an extreme character.
17. The applicant pointed to an alleged mismatch between the designations used in documents (OS/Fuel vs RS Section) and alleges oral orders were not confirmed in writing. The respondents, however, explained the posting position and averred that the direction to serve in Fuel Section arose on the facts stated the incumbent of the said post took VRS. Minor administrative mismatches or informal notations, which are common in large administrative offices, do not automatically invalidate findings unless the mismatch shows that the Department could not have 2025.09.12 RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30' Item No.21/C-2 15 OA No.239/2021 possibly established the alleged refusal. The respondents stated the refusal was contemporaneously recorded and considered.
18. From perusal of the pleadings, we find that the Department discharged the basic procedural burden, as charge was issued, applicant filed a detailed reply, the Disciplinary Authority considered that reply and imposed a permissible minor penalty, the Appellate Authority examined the appeal and the Revisionary Authority reviewed the revision and recorded reasons. That administrative sequence is legally tenable. Further, the applicant has not demonstrated any specific and concrete prejudice
19. In the above facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that the present OA is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
20. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2025.09.12
RAVI KANOJIA17:25:30+05'30'