Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Anish Mon Joseph vs South Western Railway on 1 August, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00271/2024
Friday, this the 1st day of August, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Anish Mon Joseph, Aged 46 years, S/o Late V.V.Joseph,
[Ex-Loco Pilot/Passenger, South Western Railway/Huballi
Division/Vascodagama, Hubballi-580 020], Residing at: House No.58,
Krishna Vijayam, Surya Nagar, Chandra Nagar, Palakkad - 678 007.
- Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala T Gopi,
Mr.Kailesh T Gopi]
Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, South Western
Railway, Headquarters Office, Hubballi-580 020, Dharwad District,
Karnataka.
2. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer(O&F), South Western
Railway, Headquarters office, Hubballi-580 020, Dharwad District,
Karnataka.
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager South Western Railway,
Hubballi-580 020, Dharwad District, Karnataka.
4. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer & Revisional Authority, South
Western Railway, O/o the General Manager, Headquarters, Dharwad
District, Karnataka -580 020.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs. Sheela Devi I, SPC]
The application having been heard on 04.07.2025, the Tribunal on
01.08.2025 delivered the following order:
DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30'
O.A.No.271/2024 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Loco Pilot/Passenger in the Hubbali Division of South Western Railway. He started career as an Assistant Loco Pilot on 29.07.2002, promoted as Loco Pilot in 2007 and was working as Loco Pilot/Passenger from March 2018. While so, on 07.05.2022 when he reported for duty for taking up assignment as Loco Pilot/Passenger in train No.07342, the breath analyzer test undergone prior to commencement of duty, turned positive recording 45mg/100ml alcohol in blood. Immediately after making alternate arrangement, his blood sample was collected and sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Belagavi. Report received from the laboratory confirmed that his blood contained 47.25mg/100ml alcohol. Thus, alleging serious acts of misconduct, DAR proceeding was initiated and charge was framed against him. He denied the charge and contended that he was taking medicine for Psoriasis, which may be the reason for reading alcohol in blood, that he is a teetotaler, had never taken alcohol, he has been rated DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 3 as a 'Grade-A' Loco Pilot, had never given room for any such complaint in the past and the allegations are baseless.
2. The matter was enquired into and the Enquiry Officer rendered a finding against him. The applicant gave his representation against Annexure-A7 finding and ultimately, by Annexure-A1 penalty order dated 03.07.2023, a punishment of removal from service was rendered against him.
3. He preferred appeal against the finding, which was dismissed and then in the revisional order, Annexure-A3 dated 05.04.2024, the 4 th respondent modified the punishment on humanitarian grounds and reduced to one for compulsory retirement with 75% pensionary benefits. The applicant challenges the legality of Annexures-A1 to A3 orders and seeks a direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
4. According to the applicant, Annexures-A1 to A3 are arbitrary, discriminatory, non-speaking and against all principles of natural justice, such orders were passed in mechanical exercise of power, without application of mind. Further, it is submitted that there is no valid or legal DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 4 evidence against him for finding him guilty of the alleged charges. He had never been alcoholic,the enquiry report was passed without appreciating evidence properly. The contents of the laboratory report were not proved. The Enquiry Officer had proceeded as though it is the duty of the charged officer to disprove the allegations. The fact that he being a psoriasis patient, was taking ayurvedic medicine, which fact proved through his witness, was not considered. So, according to the applicant, the findings reached against him are perverse.
5. Though the cause of action had arisen within the area of operation of South Western Railway, applicant has approached this Tribunal since he is a native of Palakkad.
6. Respondents have denied the contentions. According t them, the charge raised against the applicant was proved and it was found that his blood sample contained 47.25mg/100ml alcohol, which proved grievous misconduct on the part of the applicant. In the light of such proved facts, the Enquiry Officer is justified in making adverse finding against the applicant.
DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 5
7. Relying on the decision reported in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [(1997) 2 SCC 491] they have pointed out that there were materials to find him guilty of the charge. The FSL report was marked as suggested by the applicant. At that time he had not raised any objection. The standard of proof required in a criminal trial cannot be insisted in a disciplinary enquiry. In this connection. Reliance has been placed on Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and others [(2003) 3 SCC 583]. Relying on Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and others [(2020) 9 SCC 471] it is pointed out that in such matters, scope for judicial review is very little.
8. According to the respondents, the findings were made after giving ample opportunities to the applicant, that Annexures-A1 to A3 are liable to be sustained.
9. The applicant filed a rejoinder along with Annexures-A15 to A18.
10. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.
11. Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the applicant DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 6 reiterated that there is no legal evidence to sustain the finding reached against the applicant, that there is violation of natural justice and total lack of application of mind by all the functionaries of the disciplinary action. The learned counsel also relied on Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain [AIR 1969 SC 983], Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar and others [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 890] and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 891] in support of his contentions.
12. Smt. Sheela Devi, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has justified the findings rendered against the applicant. According to the learned counsel, ample opportunities were afforded to the applicant to defend the case by cross examining the witnesses and challenging the documents marked on the side of the prosecution. The applicant had examined a witness to disprove the charge. According to the learned Standing Counsel, either through intoxication or medication, so much percentage of alcohol was found in the blood of the applicant and it was hazardous to engage such a person for running a train. Here, DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 7 the past conduct of the applicant is irrelevant. It is a fact that on 07.05.2022 so much percentage of alcohol was found in his blood which itself is a serious act of misconduct. According to the learned Standing Counsel, considering the past service of the applicant, the revisional authority has taken a lenient view and therefore, Annexure-A3 order is only to be upheld.
13. There is no dispute on the broad facts of the case. As noticed earlier, on 07.05.2022 at 7.10 AM, the applicant was subjected to breath analyzer test which turned positive. After making alternate arrangement, he was not allowed to enter for duty. The blood sample also showed alcohol concentration of 47.25 mg/100 ml. It being a serious act of misconduct on the part of a Loco Pilot, Annexure-I memo of charges was issued to him on the following lines:
"That the said Sri. Anish Mon Joseph, LP/M/VSG was booked for train no 07342 pass Ex VSG to QLM on 07.05.2022. While Sign ON at 07:10 hrs you were found Breather Analyzer test report positive with percentage of 45mg/100ml bearing record no 005803. As a result of which to avoid detention to train, another crew was arranged to work 07342 pass at the DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 8 neck of the time. Subsequently you were sent to ADMO/HU/VSG for medical examination as per procedure. The blood reports received from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Government of Karnataka), Belagavi on 14.07.22 also confirmed that Alcohol concentration in your blood is 47.25mg/100ml. This is a serious safety lapse on your account involving drunkenness on duty.
Thus you have violated the GR 2.09 of G&SR of South Western Railway and failed to maintain devotion towards duty and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) (ii) and Rule no 22 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966."
14. The charge memo contained list of three documents, report of the CCC, report of on duty CC Sri.V.S.Naik and the report dated 30.06.2022 of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. Two witnesses were also cited on behalf of the prosecution.
15. All the three documents were marked and two witnesses were examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, the applicant examined one Dr.Arsallen Nisam Kabir as defence witness (DW1) to buttress the point that he was a patient of psoriasis for which medicines were being taken. According to the applicant, the alcohol content, if any, in the blood might be the outcome of consumption of DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 9 ayurvedic medicines prescribed by DW1.
16. Rejecting the versions of the applicant, Annexure-A7 enquiry report was filed, against which Annexure-A8 representation was given by the applicant. As stated earlier, the disciplinary authority rejected the plea and found him unsuitable to continue in service and ordered his instant removal from service. The appellate authority confirmed the finding and a modification order was passed by the revisional authority on 05.04.2024.
17. After going through the materials and the rival contentions, we have no doubt in our mind that the Enquiry Officer has seriously erred in making a finding against the applicant without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the applicant in proper perspective. It is evident from the documents produced by the applicant that from the very outset the applicant had contended that there are no legal pieces of evidence against him to find him guilty of the charge. In the Annexure-A6 defence brief filed under Rule 9(22) of D&AR of Railway Servants Rules it was contended that the evidence of LW1 is of no use for DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 10 the prosecution. From the very outset the applicant contended that blood sample was not collected as per IRMM norms, which was mandatory. Evidently, both the witnesses for the prosecution could not enlighten the Enquiry Officer on this contention nor the Enquiry Officer seriously considered this aspect.
18. Secondly, it is true that the FSL report was marked as Ext.3, but the Enquiry Officer failed to follow the basic principles of law that, mere marking of a document does not mean admission of the contents of the document. It is the fundamental principle of law that proof of a document is not proof of its contents. Here, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the doctor who collected blood sample or the person who conducted examination of the sample were neither cited nor examined in the enquiry. The applicant had already raised the contention that the respondents had not followed the mandatory provisions under the IRMM. Right from Annexure-A6 defence brief, such a contention had been raised, but to no effect. This has also been submitted in Annexure-A8 representation filed against the DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 11 enquiry report, but in vain. We have noticed that in Annexure-A9 appeal memorandum and Annexure-A10 revision petition those contentions were reiterated. That means, the consistent stand of the applicant was that the mandatory provisions in IRMM norms were not followed. In this context, examination of the doctor who took sample and also the person who examined the sample should have been done before the Enquiry Officer, which was not an empty formality. The very charge memo should have contained them as witnesses.
19. The Enquiry Officer should have, not withstanding the fact that the names of such witnesses were not incorporated in the charge sheet, called such witnesses for appreciating the evidence against the applicant. Instead, he has placed implicit reliance on Ext.3 as if it is absolute truth.
20. In the facts of the case, the result of the blood sample collected from the person of the applicant is the most vital piece of evidence that could be used for proving the charge. LW1 Sri.Binesh does not have direct knowledge about the incident. He was not in DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 12 station at the time of collection of the sample. At that time LW2 Sri.V.S.Naik was on duty as CC. He has spoken about the breath analyzer test. But that result is not cited against the applicant. What has been projected is the FSL test result, Ext.3. This document has not been proved through legal means.
21. The importance of this piece of evidence need not be overemphasized. It is through this document that the Enquiry Officer found the charge against him proved. But unfortunately, the contents of the certificate stands not brought out through legal means.
22. As mentioned earlier, LW2 was present when the breath analyzer test was conducted and blood sample was collected. He has no case that, on external appearance, either from his behaviour or gait, he looked like a person who had consumed any intoxicant. We are again trying to highlight the importance of proving the FSL report through legal means, for proceeding against the applicant. Without proving the contents of the certificate, it was illegal for the Enquiry Offcer to find the applicant guilty; such an assumption is arbitrary and illegal. The Enquiry DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 13 Officer was under the false impression that by mere marking of the document he could assume the correctness of its contents.
23. In this connection, it is appropriate to extract the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Jain, quoted supra:
"It is true that, in numerous cases, it has been held that domestic tribunals, like an Enquiry Officer, are not bound by the technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act; but it has nowhere been laid down that even substantive rules, which would form part of principles of natural justice, also can be ignored by the domestic tribunals. The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant Bank was unable to point out any case at all where it may have been held by this Court or by any other Court that a domestic tribunal will be justified in recording its findings on the basis of hearsay evidence without having any direct or DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 14 circumstantial evidence in support of those findings."
24. Since the enquiry report itself is bad for not appreciating material evidence in proper perspective, all the steps followed by the respondents must fall to the ground. At the risk of repetition we hold that material witnesses were not examined for proving the charge. Instead, merely on the assumption that the laboratory report was marked, which would amount to proof of all the contents of the document, the Enquiry Officer proceeded under wrong interpretation. Such an aspect goes to the very root of the matter.
25. In fact, the contentions of the respondents that he was under
the influence of alcohol or that so much percentage of alcohol was in his blood could have been proved only through the certificate issued from the Forensic Science Laboratory. In order to prove the document, the respondents ought to have proved that the sampling was done appropriately in tune with the provisions of law and IRMM norms.
Without following such procedural formalities and examining the appropriate witnesses, the laboratory report was accepted, which is a grave error committed by the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority, DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30' O.A.No.271/2024 15 the appellate authority and the revisional authority did not realise this fundamental mistake and believed the enquiry report blindfold. On this premise alone, the punishment imposed on the applicant must be quashed.
26. We set aside Annexures-A1 to A3 as illegal. Resultantly, the matter is sent back to the respondents for initiating the enquiry afresh, in the light of he observations made here before. The enquiry should restart after citing appropriate additional witnesses.
In the result, the Original Application is allowed to the above extent. The applicant shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The period of absence will be regularised as per law. We make no order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 1st August, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30'
O.A.No.271/2024 16
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1: A true copy of the Penalty Advice bearing No.H/M.348/
I/LPM/VSG/DAR/Sep 2022/509 dated 03.07.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure-A2: True copy of the Appeal Advice bearing No.H/P.90/VI/ 2023/AMJ/43 dated 12.09.2023, issued by the third respondent.
Annexure-A3: A True copy of the Revision order bearing No.SWR/ P.227/DAR/AMJ/LP/VSG/UBL dated 05.04.2024, issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure-A4: A true copy of the memorandum of charge bearing No.H/M.348/I/LP/M/VSG/DAR/Sep 2022/509 dated 12.09.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure-A5: A True copy of the proceedings of the inquiry conducted on various dates by the Inquiry Officer. Annexure-A6: A True copy of the defence brief submitted by the applicant on 27.02.2023.
Annexure-A7: A True copy of the letter bearing No.H/M.348/I/LP/M/ VSG/DAR/Sep 2022/509 dated 16.03.2023,issued by the 2nd respondent along with copy of the inquiry report.
Annexure-A8: A true copy of the objections submitted by the applicant to the Inquiry Report, dated 15.04.2023 along with its enclosures.
Annexure-A9: A true copy of the detailed appeal submitted by the
DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30'
O.A.No.271/2024 17
applicant addressed to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager dated 02.08.2023.
Annexure-A10: A true copy of the revision petition submitted by the applicant addressed to the 4th respondent, dated 08.11.2023.
Annexure-A11: A true copy of the communication bearing No.H/P.90/ IV/2023/AMJ/43 dated 02.01.2024, issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/Cord/Huballi. Annexure-A12: A true copy of the clarifications to the various doubts raised by the revision authority submitted by the applicant dated 12.01.2024 to the 4th respondent. Annexure-A13: A true copy of the Railway Board order bearing No.2009/Safety(DM)/6/12/Committee dated 02.11.2012.
Annexure-A14: A true extract of GR 2.09 of G &SR, Rule 3(1) (ii) and Rule 22 of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966. Annexure-A15: A true copy of the Out Patient ticket bearing Sl.No.339/M on 02.02.2022 issued by the ACMS/Health Unit/(Rlys)Vasco.
Annexure-A16: A true copy of the Out Patient Ticket issued by the ACMS/Health Unit/Vasco(Rlys) on 16.05.2022.
Annexure-A17: A true copy of the letter dated 05.08.2022 addressed to the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (OFS). Annxure-A18: A true copy of Para 565 and 566 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000.
DEEPA S 2025.08.01 14:58:44+05'30'