Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ramji Singh vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2026
Reserved on 17 .02.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
th
This the 24 day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 576 of 2010
Ram Ji Singh aged about 51 years s/o Late Brahma Singh presently
working as O.S. II, Commercial Branch, DRM's Office, Allahabad, r/
o 659 B, 10th Avenue Railway Loco Colony, Allahabad.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Birendra Kumar Mishra
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.C. Railway,
Headquarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad
2. Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, N.C.Railway, Allahabad,
3. Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
4. Chief Commercial Manager, N.C. Railway, Headquarter Office
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
5. Shri Rajendra Singh, Chief Inspector of Ticket
(Administration)/ N.C. Railway, Allahabad Junction Station.
Allahabad (in person)
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Dharmendra Tiwari authority holder of Shri Birendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
ASHISH KUMAR 1
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders i.e. Major Penalty Charge sheet dated 12.6.2006 issued by Sr. DCM/N.C. Railway, Allahabad ( Annexure A-1), Enquiry Report dated nil communicated vide letter dated 28.2./ 14.3.2007 (Annexure A-2), order of penalty dated 21.6.2007 (Annexure A-3); and revised Revisional Order passed by C.C.M. dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure A-4) and direct the respondents to restore all consequential benefits which would arise to him after quashing the aforesaid impugned orders.
(ii) A writ or order or direction in the nature of Mandamus may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice, directing the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from his regular salary by the respondents
(iii) Any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Ticket Collector on 29.11.1978 in the Allahabad Division. Subsequently, he was promoted as Train Ticket Examiner and JIT in different grades. After being declared medically unfit, he was absorbed as Office Superintendent-II in the Commercial Branch on 13.02.1997 and was posted at Allahabad. While serving in the office of the Chief Inspector of Tickets (CIT), North Central Railway, he was placed under suspension on 07.04.2006 by respondent no. 2. The suspension was based on a complaint made by Shri Rajendra Singh, CIT, alleging that the applicant failed to record in the relevant register/revision book the fact that Shri Suresh Chand, Ticket Collector, had been placed under suspension and also failed to inform the Senior DCM, Allahabad, about the same. Due to this omission, the salary of Shri Suresh Chand was charged by the office, even though he was under suspension. According to the applicant, the lapse, if any, was merely an act of negligence and did not amount to misconduct under the rules, and the charges framed against him were vague, ASHISH KUMAR 2 unfounded, and not sustainable in law. Nevertheless, a major penalty charge sheet was issued against him. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 28.02.2007/14.03.2007 holding the applicant guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, imposed punishment upon the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal; however, the Appellate Authority dismissed the same by a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Thereafter, the revision petition filed by the applicant was also rejected in a similar manner without assigning proper reasons. It is also contended that applicant approached before this Tribunal through OA no. 51/2009 , which was decided on 29.01.2009 with the following directions:-
Having heard parties counsel at length, we hereby quash and set-aside the 22.11.2007, Appellate order dated and Revisional order dated 24.7.2008. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional authority for reconsideration of the case of the applicant afresh in accordance with the rules and taking into account the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173 U.O.I. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 147 - Ram Chand Chand Vs Director IOC Vs. Santosh Kumar, JT 1994 (1) SC 597- National Fertilizer Vs. P.K. Khanna and 2006 SCC (L&S) 840- N.M. Arya Vs. United Insurance Co.
It is further contended that the Revisional Authority failed to properly consider the grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal and revision. It is submitted that, without discussing the evidence collected during the departmental inquiry or examining the material on record in detail, the Revisional Authority simply observed that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in not reporting the suspension of Shri Suresh Chand to the competent authority. The order further stated that the applicant had not given any satisfactory explanation nor produced any evidence in his defence; however, according to the applicant, this conclusion was recorded without proper appreciation of the evidence and without assigning clear reasons. It is pleaded that although the Revisional Authority reduced the punishment and modified it to a penalty operative for one year with cumulative effect, the punishment still amounts to a major penalty. At the same time, the ASHISH KUMAR 3 authority itself treated the alleged act as mere negligence, and therefore, imposition of a major penalty was not justified. It is also specifically urged that the inquiry report is cryptic and non-speaking, as it does not contain proper discussion, analysis, or appreciation of the evidence led during the inquiry proceedings.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit refuting the facts made in the Original Application and stating that, in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal contained in its order dated 29.01.2009, the Revisional Authority reconsidered the entire matter and, after examining all the facts and circumstances, passed the impugned order by taking a lenient view and modifying the punishment earlier imposed upon the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant had himself admitted his lapse, which amounts to misconduct under the relevant rules. Therefore, according to the respondents, there is no irregularity, illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the inquiry proceedings or in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Revisional Authority. It is contended that the act of the applicant clearly falls within the definition of misconduct, and hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
5. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant reiterating almost the same facts as disclosed in the OA.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, authority holder of Shri Birendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is cryptic, non-speaking, and without proper reasons. He argued that the inquiry report does not clearly discuss the evidence collected during the inquiry, nor does it explain how the charges against the applicant were proved on the basis of such evidence. Merely stating that, "after perusal of the entire record, the charges are proved" is not sufficient to show proper application of mind by the Inquiry Officer. It was further contended ASHISH KUMAR 4 that since no detailed discussion of evidence was made and no clear reasoning was given as to how the findings were arrived at, the applicant was deprived of a fair opportunity to submit an effective representation against the inquiry report. Learned counsel also submitted that, in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal had specifically directed the Revisional Authority to pass a speaking and reasoned order after hearing the applicant and considering the pleas raised by him; however, the revisional order dated 27.04.2009 does not reflect compliance with these directions, nor does it show that any proper opportunity of hearing was granted. It was further argued that the alleged act attributed to the applicant amounts at most to negligence and does not fall within the definition of misconduct, and therefore such a harsh major penalty could not have been imposed. On these grounds, it was prayed that the OA be allowed, the impugned orders be set aside, and all consequential benefits be granted to the applicant. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors decided on 05.04.2007.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant had himself admitted his lapse, and therefore the charge against him stands proved. It was argued that the Revisional Authority, after considering the entire facts and evidence on record, took a lenient view and modified the punishment originally imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. According to the respondents, the punishment as finally imposed is proportionate to the seriousness of the charge. It was further contended that if the applicant had been careful and had timely reported the suspension of Shri Suresh Chand, the salary of the suspended employee would not have been charged by the office. He further argued that the act of the applicant clearly falls within the definition of misconduct under the relevant rules. Referring to the contents of the appeal memo and the representation submitted by the applicant against the inquiry report, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety, or ASHISH KUMAR 5 perversity in the impugned orders, and therefore the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
10. Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the relevant para of the Inspector Prem Chand (supra) case , which is reproduced as under:-
12. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It was, therefore, necessary for the disciplinary authority to arrive at a finding of fact that the appellant was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in relation to discharge of his duties in service, which was willful in character. No such finding was arrived at. An error of judgment, as noticed hereinbefore, per se is not a misconduct. A negligence simpliciter also would not be a misconduct. In Union of India & Ors. vs. J. Ahmed ( 1979 (2) scc 286), whereupon Mr. Sharan himself has placed reliance, this Court held so stating:
"Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster, 17 Q.B. 536, 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers, 1959 1 WLR 698)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, (61 Bom LR 1596), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (10 Guj LR 23). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct." [Emphasis supplied]
11. In the case of Union of India Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia reported in 2007 Law Suit (SC) 950, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary ASHISH KUMAR 6 authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty."
12. In the case of State of Meghalaya Vs. Mecken Singh N Marak reported in 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1935, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held as under:-
"A court or a tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interferences very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefore. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review."
13. In the present matter, it is evident from the record that the allegation levelled against the applicant is that he failed to report in time the suspension of one employee, namely Shri Suresh Chand, to the concerned authorities and the office, due to which the salary of the said employee was charged. It is also evident that the applicant participated in the departmental inquiry proceedings. During the hearing of the case, the respondents were directed to produce the complete inquiry records; however, by affidavit dated 07.01.2026, they informed the Tribunal that the said records are not presently available. Therefore, the matter is being decided on the basis of the documents and material available on record in the Original Application.
14. Although in the first OA, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was not set aside and only the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority were quashed, it was still incumbent upon the Revisional Authority to re-examine the matter in ASHISH KUMAR 7 its entirety, including whether the inquiry report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority were reasoned and speaking, and whether the findings recorded therein were properly based upon the evidence collected during the inquiry proceedings. The revisional order dated 27.04.2009 indicates that the authority considered the documentary evidence placed on record and came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in not timely reporting the suspension of Shri Suresh Chand to the competent authority and the office, due to which his salary was charged. The Revisional Authority itself observed that the act of the applicant amounted to "sheer negligence" and further recorded that although the salary of Shri Suresh Chand was charged, it was not actually paid to the concerned employee and therefore no financial loss was caused to the Railway Department. In his appeal memo as well as in his representation dated 21.12.2007 (Annexure A-12), the applicant had specifically stated that "the lapse on any part was inadvertent and was not such as that for which so harsh punishment was warranted. Sir, the said punishment has ruined my whole family."
15. On the basis of this statement, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant had admitted his guilt; however, this statement cannot be treated as a clear and unconditional admission of misconduct, but rather he has challenged the order of punishment claiming it to be harsh punishment. The Revisional Authority, adopting a lenient view, reduced the punishment to one operative for one year with cumulative effect. Therefore, the core issue that arises for consideration is whether the punishment imposed upon the applicant is proportionate to the gravity of the charge. When the Revisional Authority itself has treated the act as mere negligence and has also recorded that no financial loss was caused to the department, revisional authority ought not to have imposed major penalty
16. Since the applicant has been retired from service, revisional authority himself has recorded that alleged act comes only under the definition of negligence thus, we are of view that remitting back the ASHISH KUMAR 8 matter setting aside the punishment imposed upon the applicant, to the competent authority to pass fresh order in respect of punishment, will be onerous to the applicant as he has been retired from the service and fresh litigation will start. Although the Tribunal should refrain from passing any punishment order, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the purpose of imposing adequate punishment would serve if the punishment imposed upon the applicant by the revisional authority vide order dated 28.4.2009 is modified to the extent of non-cumulative effect. Thus, the punishment imposed/modified by the revisional authority imposing the punishment for only one year with cumulation effect is modified to the effective with non-cumulative effect. Thus, OA is partly allowed and order of disciplinary authority as well as revisional authority holding guilty to the applicant is affirmed but punishment imposed /modified by the revisional authority is converted as above. .
17. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ashish)
ASHISH KUMAR 9