Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
B Satayanarayan vs South East Central Railway on 13 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.203/00365/2023
Gwalior, this Friday, the 13th day of March, 2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
B. Satayanarayan S/o Shri B. V. Rao, aged about 71 years, Ex Senior
Clerk, office of the Assistant Personnel Officer (W), South East Central
Railway, Bhilai, R/o Senior MIG-170, Chhattisgarh Housing Board
Colony, Mahamaya Road Kumhari Pin Code 490042
-Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri S K Gautam)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through : The General Manager, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin code 495004
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.) Pin code 492001
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the DRM, South
East Central Railway, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin code 492001
4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492001
5. The Assistant Personnel Officer (Welfare), South East Central Railway,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492001
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan)
Page 1 of 17
VISHAL 2026.03.20
11:27:00
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023
Reserved
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM:
Through this Original Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 02/04/2003 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent No. 5 in compliance of order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 203/00628/2022 vide order dated 17/11/2022. Respondent no. 3 has passed an order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure A/2) wherein while deciding the representation (Annexure A/6) of the applicant he has stated as follows:
"there is no justifiable grounds to consider and decide the case in your favour and extend all service benefits including pension. Therefore, I decide that the order is not fit to be interfered with and the punishment of removal from service without compassionate allowance and granting all benefits including pension stands good. This dispose of representation (Annexure A-6) of the way in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble CAT / Jabalpur dated 17/11/2022."
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in 1973 as Khalasi in the category of Class-IV and was working under the Loco Foreman. He participated in Departmental Promotional Examination and joined as Clerk in the office of Assistant Personnel Officer (Welfare), South East Central Railway Bhilai. The employees of Railways made a complaint regarding misappropriation of money. After Page 2 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 3 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved the complaint, an enquiry was initiated and it was found that an amount of Rs. 12,20,875/- had been misappropriated by the applicant. FIR was lodged against the applicant and he was suspended from the service vide order dated 05.12.2002 (Annexure A/3). Charge Memorandum dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure A/4) was issued regarding holding of enquiry against the applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968. On the basis of charges, the fact-finding enquiry committee was constituted with 3 equal rank officers. The fact finding committee did not provide the relied upon documents during the course of enquiry. The applicant was charged under section 409,420 of IPC. The State Government also registered a case against the applicant bearing Criminal Case No. 1498/2006. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg acquitted the applicant vide judgment dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure A/6). The State Government filed an appeal against acquittal before Sessions Court Durg in Cr. A. No.62/2019. The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the State and confirmed the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. A copy of the judgment dated 09/03/2022 is annexed as Annexure A/7. Thereafter, the applicant moved an Original application No.203/00628/2022 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure A/8) directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure A-6). Page 3 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved The applicant contends that without conducting a fair enquiry, he has been removed from service which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Ramlakhan Sharma in SLP No. 2608/2012 dated 02.07.2018. Therefore, the applicant has prayed that order of termination dated 02.04.2003 (Annexure A/1) along with order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure A/2) should be set aside. Further, the respondents should be directed to give monetary benefits from the date of termination of service till today.
3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that this is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant had filed O.A. No. 203/628/2022 which was disposed at the admission stage itself vide order dated 17.11.2022 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure A/6) by way of reasoned and speaking order. The respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant. Being aggrieved with the order, the applicant has filed this O.A. requesting for quashment of punishment order dated 02.04.2003 (Annexure A/1) of Disciplinary Authority pertaining to removal from service without any compassionate allowance with immediate effect. The Appellate authority and Revisionary authority have upheld the aforesaid punishment. The applicant is also challenging Page 4 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Respondent department in pursuance of the directions given by this Tribunal (supra) in O.A. 203/628/2022 dated 17.11.2022.
4. A complaint was filed by the employees of the South East Railway that a senior clerk in APO welfare had collected money from the cashier to deposit the same in post Office against the Pass Book Accounts of individual Railway Employees who had opened the recurring Deposit Account in the Postal Department. The applicant collected the money but did not deposit the collected money in the post office. He had misappropriated the collected money. He had misused his authority for personal gain by diverting the money of recurring deposits of the employees. A major penalty charge-sheet vide charge memorandum dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure A/1) was issued to him. An amount of Rs. 7,17,900/- has been misappropriated by the applicant. The applicant has acted in a manner unbecoming of railway servant in contravention of Rule 3.1(i) (ii) 8(iii) of RS (Conduct) Rules, 1968 amended from time to time. The applicant preferred a representation dated 17.02.2003 against the charge memorandum to the Disciplinary Authority wherein he admitted and accepted the charges leveled against him. He further requested not to conduct inquiry in the matter. As per Rule 7 of Master Circular 67 if there is an unqualified admission of the charges by the charged official, no Page 5 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved inquiry needs to be ordered by the Disciplinary Authority, who can pass the orders straight away. (Board's letter No. E(D&A)57 XtG 6-6) dated 26.04.1957. The Disciplinary, Authority after going through the facts and circumstances and the records related to the matter including the admission of the charges and request for not conducting regular inquiry on 02.04.2003 (Annexure A/1), passed an order of removal from service without sanctioning compassionate allowance with immediate effect in terms of the powers vested under Rule 7 of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules 1968. The Applicant preferred an appeal dated 04.04.2003 before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.03.2004 (Annexure R/1) upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved with the order of appellate authority, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. no.203/00628/2022. The Tribunal vide it's order directed the respondents to decide revision application dated 23.07.2021. During this period, a criminal case bearing No. 1498/2006 was lodged against him on the same charges. The applicant attained superannuation in year 2010. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of Trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2018 acquitted the Applicant on the basis of benefit of doubt. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No.203/00628/2022. This Tribunal without going into merits of the case disposed the OA vide order Page 6 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure R/1) with a direction to competent authority in the respondent department to consider and decide the representation dated 23.07.2021 within the period of 90 days. The representation of the applicant dated 23.07.2021 was decided in light of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2022. The applicant is raising the grievance regarding non disposal of his revision petition dated 26.04.2004 after a gap of almost 18 years. After a gap of 18 years, the applicant approached this Tribunal annexing a fresh representation dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure A/6) which is belated and time bar. In the said representation, the applicant has sought directions for its disposal treating the same as revision petition which could not be decided earlier. The applicant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt vide order dated 08.08.2018 wherein he approached this Tribunal in 2022 i.e. after a delay of 4 years. The applicant could have approached this Tribunal in the year 2019. Hence the O.A. is time bar. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the reasons for delay in approaching this Tribunal earlier. Hence, the O.A. merits to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. The judgment relied upon by the applicant in the case of Union of India vs Ramlakhan Sharma in SLP No. 2608/2012 decided on 02.07.2018 is not applicable as the applicant in the present case has been acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. On the other hand, the respondents are relying on the Page 7 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Railway Officers' Association vs. Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of dismissal which can still be passed even if the delinquent has been acquitted of the criminal charges. Further the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3307/2011 decided on 12.04.2012 had held that it is all the more necessary necessary to expedite disciplinary proceedings when simultaneous proceeding are initiated in view of the need to handle corruption cases for orderly functioning of the public offices. It is further mentioned that the degree of proof required in a criminal prosecution is much higher than in departmental proceedings.
It has been held that the purpose of departmental inquiry and prosecution in a criminal case are entirely different and both are distinct proceedings. Prosecution is launched for violation of duty which the offender owes to the society. On the other hand, the purpose of departmental proceedings is to maintain discipline and efficiency in public service. Needless to mention that the applicant accepted the allegations levelled against him in the charge memorandum dated 29.01.2003 and had requested that no inquiry be conducted against him. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose the punishment acceeding to Page 8 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 9 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved the request of the applicant not to conduct the inquiry in terms of the powers vested in him under the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968. The applicant submitted a revision petition dated 26.03.2004. He subsequently filed O.A. No. 00628/2022 with a fresh representation dated 23.07.2021 after a gap of 18 years. The applicant could not have filed this O.A. in 2022 for disposal of Review application which was filed on 26.04.2004 i.e. after a gap of 18 years. However, the respondents have complied with the order of this Tribunal and issued the order dated 23.01.2023 conforming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and subsequently upheld by appellate authority. The respondents are also relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 in the case of the applicant. The said judgment reads as under:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When in inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with."
Page 9 of 17
VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 10 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved They have also relied on the judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718: AIR 1964 SC 364, wherein it has been held that 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 be issued.
The Disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were vested with the authority to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view of the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute it's own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents wherein he has submitted that the office of Disciplinary Authority was abolished in the year 2004. The applicant attained superannuation in the year 2010. Therefore the revisionary order dated 23.01.2023 is unsustainable since no authority is vested with the authority to confirm the non-functional officer's punishment order that too after 13 years of his retirement. Hence the original application is maintainable in the eyes of law. The applicant has submitted that the contention of the respondents that he has accepted the charges and had requested that no inquiry be conducted is incorrect. Hence, the applicant has submitted that Page 10 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 11 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved vide his representation dated 15.02.2003 he has denied the charges. The applicant did not file the representation dated 17.02.2003 as alleged by the respondents. The applicant had filed his defence representation dated 15.02.2003 along with this original application. Hence the submissions of the respondents in this aspect are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The applicant has submitted that vide representation dated 15.02.2003 he had submitted that he will nominate his defence counsel after appointment of the enquiry officer. The respondents have not attached a copy of the applicant's representation dated 17.02.2003 to corroborate their contention. It was the duty of the disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry and record the statement of the prosecution witnesses and of charged official even if the charged official had accepted the charges and mentioned that no disciplinary enquiry should be conducted against him. He has submitted that acquittal in a criminal case will entitle him to all service benefits and retiral benefits since no disciplinary enquiry was held in this case.
6. We have considered the matter, heard the counsels and perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the Original Application and the judgments relied upon by the counsels for both the parties.
7. The applicant has stated that he never accepted the charges. Further, in terms of letter dated 15.02.2003 he had requested to nominate Page 11 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 12 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved a defense counsel after appointment of the inquiry officer. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the applicant had accepted the charges and given his consent that no enquiry needs to be conducted vide his letter dated 17.02.2003. We observe that neither the applicant has attached a copy of his representation dated 15.02.2003 nor have the respondents appended his representation dated 17.02.2003 contradicting the stand of the applicant. We also take note of the order dated 02.04.2003 passed by the Disciplinary authority (Annexure A/1) wherein para no. 4 & 5 it has been stated as follows:
"It is observed that you have failed in this aspect, you have admitted that you have misappropriated the money collected. Thus the article of charges are proved beyond doubt.
It is clear that you have misused the power as designated Recurring Deposit agent and also betrayed the trust of Recurring Deposit account holders. As confessed by you that you have misappropriated the money for your dire personal needs. Whatever the reason, such an irresponsible and heinous act cannot be pardoned. It involves hard earned money of Rly. Men who have been swindled by you. Any mercy shown to you will be unfair to those Rly men and amount to abetting in your crime. Therefore, in the light of the serious misconduct of misappropriation of public money there is nesd for Page 12 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 13 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved exemplary punishment, but as you have confessed your mistake and show repentance for your misdeed."
Therefore the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10(5) RS (D&A) Rule 1968 and Schedule II vide rule No. 6 and 7 of the delegation of power under RS (D&A) Rule 1968 as amended from time to time, has imposed the punishment of Removal from Rly Service without sanctioning any compassionate allowance with immediate effect as a measure of penalty."
We have no reason to disbelieve the respondents that the enquiry was not conducted as the applicant had admitted his guilt and had requested that no enquiry be conducted in the subject matter.
8. We further take note of the reply given by the respondents wherein in para 19 they have submitted that Shri Gopal Merasi Staff & Welfare Inspector Raipur was nominated to conduct a the fact finding enquiry by the competent authority to ascertain the fact whether any misconduct was committed by the applicant or not. During the fact finding inquiry, the applicant was asked questions and given an opportunity to present his defence. It was only thereafter that the Disciplinary Authority issued a Major penalty charge sheet vide memo dated 29.01.2003. Page 13 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 14 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment vide order dated 02.04.2003 (Annexure A/1).
9. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.03.2004 (Annexure R/1) has upheld the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant gave a revision petition dated 26.04.2004 to the ADRM which was pending at the time of his superannuation on 31.10.2010. However, a copy of the revision petition dated 26.04.2004 has not been attached along with the O.A. by the applicant.
10. In pursuance of the order of this Tribunal dated 17.11.2022, the respondents have decided the subsequent representation of the applicant dated 23.07.2021 by way of a reasoned and speaking order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure A/2). This representation was given by the applicant consequent to his acquittal in criminal case. It is relevant to point out that the applicant never raised a grievance or gave any representation/reminder to the respondents to decide his revision petition dated 26.04.2004 during the last 18 years. ADRM (Respondent no. 3) decided representation of the applicant dated 23.07.2021 vide his order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure A/2) with the following observation:
10. "... there no justifiable grounds to consider and decide the case in your favour and extend all service benefits including pension.
Therefore I decide that the order is not fit to be interfered with and Page 14 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 15 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved the punishment of removal from service without compassionate allowance and granting all benefits including pension stands good....."
11. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A K Kraipak vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 wherien it has been held that the principles of natural justice must be followed in administrative and departmental proceedings.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. G Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 and Om Prakash vs. Union of India (2011) 14 SCC 1 has emphasized that the punishment imposed should not be disproportionate to the offence and it must not be shocking to the conscience of the Court.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited and another Vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan, (2011) 13 SCC 541: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 67 has considered various case laws on the subject, and has given the following findings:
"(19) In Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177 :
1989 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1989) 10 ATC 30, this Court while dealing with the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority observed as under:Page 15 of 17
VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 16 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved "27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority."
14. The alleged misconduct is serious as the applicant had misappropriated the cash received from the Railway cashier and did not deposit the impugned amount in the respective postal RD accounts of the employees from whose salary the amount had been deducted. This misappropriated amount is to the tune of Rs. 7,17,900/- as per the reply given by the respondents.
15. The respondents have relied on the B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 to support their contention that power of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. Page 16 of 17 VISHAL 2026.03.20 11:27:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 17 O.A.No. 203/00365/2023 Reserved
16. In our considered view that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondents. The action of the Disciplinary authority in imposing the impugned punishment of removal from service without compassionate allowance is commensurate to the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has exercised the powers vested in him while imposing the impugned punishment under Rule 7 of the Master Circular 67 (Board's letter No. E(D&A)57 XtG 6-6) dated 26.04.1957.
17. Hence, in light of the above discussions and findings and various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we observe that there is no merit in the Original Application.
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed with no cost.
(MallikaArya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 17 of 17
VISHAL 2026.03.20
11:27:00
KUSHWAH+05'30'