Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Awadhesh Kumar Sharma vs Railway on 4 April, 2025
1 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021
051/00142
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
O.A. No. 051/00142/2021
Order reserved on: - 24.03.2025
Order pronounced on: -04.04.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER[A]
HON'BLE MR RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 56 years, Son of Gouri
Shankar Sharma, Resident of Barwadih, House No. 318/A
318/A-II,
Barwadih, P.O.-Barwadih,
P.O. P.S.-Latehar,
Latehar, Dist.
Dist.-Latehar, Jharkhand.
.........Applicant
Versus
(1) Union of India, through the General Manager, Easter Central
Patna
Bench
Railway, Dhanbad, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dist.-Dhanbad,
Dhanbad, im.
826001
(2) D.R.M., East Central Railway, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
Dist. Dhanbad.
(3) Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C & W) Eastern Central
Railway, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad, 826001
(4) Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Goods & Passengers),
Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad. 826001
(5) Additional Divisional
Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Central
Railways (Revisioning Authority), Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, Dist.
Dhanbad. 826001 & P.S.-
P.S.
(6) Executive Director (Establishment), Railway Board, New
Delhi
Delhi-1
........Respondents
For Applicant:-
Applicant: Mr. M.I. Khan, Advocate
Respondents:
Respondents:- Mr. Amit Sinha, Addl
Addl.
CGSC
ORDER
PER: RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J] PER:-
1. The present OA is filed for following relief:
relief:-
"8.1 For his reinstatement in the service as he was working on the pos of Grade-I, I, Mechanist in (C & W) work shop wheel lathe shed at Barwadih, Eastern Central Railway by 2 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 quashing all the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and thereafter all the subsequent respondents in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
AND For direction upon concerned the respondents to take all essential and required steps for payment of all the admissible dues and benefits with effect from the day of his removal i.e. on 01.12.2016.
8.2 Any other order(s), direction(s) as Your Honour may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respondents and perused the Patna pleadings including documents made available to us in the OA, Bench WS, rejoinder along with Annexures thereto.
3. It is the case of the applicant that on 01.12.2016 he was posted as Grade-I Grade I Machinist in the C & W Workshop, Wheel Lathe Shed at Barwadih, Eastern Central Railway. On that day, he was working the shift from 00:00 to 18:00 hours. The respondent's case stems from a written report filed by Station Manager Murmu Thomas on 01.12.2016, which claimed that at around 3:30 PM, an unidentified passenger in train No. 13026 assaulted a railway staff member, Santosh Kumar, with a hammer at Barwadih Platform No. 2. Santosh Kumar later succumbed to his injuries. The report also mentioned that the local staff, under the leadership of the applicant, A.K. Sharma, became agitated and forcibly ousted Station Master Anil Kumar Diwedi and Assistant Station Master Vishwakant Choudhary from their office. The agitated group of over 100 staff members closed the office and continued their protest protest from 5:00 AM to 1:05 PM, disrupting all 3 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 railway operations. The Station Manager requested action from the Railway Security Force (RSF) against those involved.
4. The deceased, Santosh Kumar, was a colleague of the applicant at Barwadih Station. When the applicant arrived at the station after being advised by the SSE (C & W) In In-charge, charge, he found the body of Santosh Kumar on the platform, surrounded by a large crowd. The applicant covered the body with a bedsheet after witnessing that it had not been covered by any cloth. The crowd continued to demand that the accused be handed over to them for revenge.
Patna Bench
5. The Railway Protection Force (RPF) took the assailant into custody, but the crowd persisted with their demand. Despite the applicant's efforts to pacify the ccrowd, rowd, the situation remained tense. Around 8:30 AM, the Divisional Traffic Manager (DTM) and Assistant Commandant of RPF arrived, but the crowd continued to refuse to cooperate. After further discussions, including talks with Shri S.S. Yadav, the mob was ffinally inally persuaded to resume work after 12:30 PM.
6. The applicant submits that he did not participate in the agitation and instead attempted to de de-escalate escalate the situation to restore normalcy. Despite this, he was unfairly made a scapegoat and signed a demand letter, letter, which resulted in penalties against him.
7. Four days after the incident, on 05.12.2016, the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C & W) passed an order removing the applicant from service under the powers conferred by Rule 14 (ii) 4 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 of the Railway Servants (Discipline (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The applicant has filed appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said order dt. 05.12.2016 of removal from servi service.
e. However, the Appellate Authority vide its order dt. 22.03.2017 reduced his penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement with a pension and 2/3 gratuity. Subsequently, on 12.05.2017, the Revisional Authority i.e. the Additional Divisional Railway Manager modified the order dt. 27.03.2017 of the Appellate Authority for making the compulso compulsory ry retirement effective from the date of removal, with all retirement benefits. Patna Bench
8. Despite the applicant's efforts to resolve the situation, his appeal for reinstatement was rejected by the Railway Board on 11.08.2020. Statements from several railway staff, including ncluding Station Master Anil Dwivedi Dwivedi and Assistant Station Master Vishwakant Choudhary, failed to specifically implicate the applicant, and none of them mentioned his direct involvement in the assault.
9. A police investigation (Daltonganj GR P.S. Case No. 53/2016) /2016) was conducted, and the applicant was found guilty of the offence under Sections 146 and 174 of the Railway Act. He was fined Rs. 1000 for each offence, with an alternative of one month simple imprisonment in case of default. However, earlier in the same year, the applicant had been awarded for his exemplary performance on 19.04.2016.
10.. Media reports and statements from railway staff indicate that over 100 railway employees participated in the agitation, but only 5 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 the applicant was held responsible and ppunished, unished, even though he had worked to restore normalcy. The applicant argues that he was wrongfully held accountable for actions that he did not commit and was punished based on an unlawful application of disciplinary rules. Hence, the OA.
CASE OF THE RESP RESPONDENTS
11.. Respondents have filed their written statement and have vehemently opposed the contentions of applicant and prayed that OA should be dismissed on the following ground as stated by them.
Patna Bench i.. The respondent addresses various points raised in the application. Regarding Paragraph 4(i), the respondent clarifies that Sri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma was posted as a Machinist Gr. I in the C&W department at BRWD, working the 00:00 to 08:00 hrs. shift on a wheel lathe. In response to Paragraph 4(ii), the respondent dent outlines the penalty imposed after considering reports from various railway officials, including a special report from ADME/ Barkakhana and a letter from DSC/DHN. These reports indicate that Sri Sharma played a leading role in disrupting train movemen movementt by instigating an agitation, leading to a stoppage of all train services from 05:00 hrs. to 13:05 hrs. on 01/12/2016, including 25 pairs of trains such as the Rajdhani Express. ii.. For Paragraph 4 (iv), the respondent clarifies that both the applicant and thee deceased were from the C&W department but worked at different locations. In response to Paragraphs 6 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 4(v) to 4(x), the respondent denies the applicant's statement, asserting that there is no evidence to support the applicant's claims. The respondent mainta maintains ins that Sri Sharma played a significant role in stopping train operations and disrupting services at Barwadih.
iii.. Addressing Paragraph 4 (xi), the respondent justifies the removal of Sri Sharma from railway service under Rule 14(ii) of the RS (D&A) Rules, 19 1968, 68, due to the severe disruption he caused to train services, which affected public and national interest. It was deemed impractical to hold an Patna Bench inquiry in such a charged atmosphere. In Paragraphs 4 (xii) to 4 (xiv), the respondent mentions that the Appella Appellate te Authority, Revisioning Authority, and President took a lenient view on humanitarian grounds, reducing the penalty to compulsory retirement with all applicable retirement benefits.
iv.. For Paragraphs 4 (xv) to 4 (xviii), the respondent reiterates that the applicant's plicant's statements are not entirely true and refers to the P.S. case No. 211/2016, where the applicant was found guilty under the Railway Act. In Paragraphs 4(xix) to 4(xxii), the respondent states that these matters are part of the record and do not req require uire further comment.
Finally, in response to Paragraph 4(xxiii), the respondent again emphasizes that Sri Sharma's actions, which severely disrupted train services, made his retention in the railway 7 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 service undesirable, leading to his removal under the applicable D&A rules.
OUR ANALYSIS
12.. An untoward incident was took place on 01.12.2016 at about 3.32 AM at Barvadeeh Railway Station at Platform No.3 when a passenger of Train No.13026 had attacked several Railway servants by snatching a hammer from one railway servant and in that incident one Railway servant namely Shri Santosh Kumar expired and Shri Deglalyadav got injured. The accused was taken into custody by R.P.F. and was handed over to Government Patna Bench Railway Police for further proceedings. An FIR No.53/2016 dated Railway 01.12.2016 was registered against the accused person namely Mohd. Naseem u/s 307, 302 of IPC.
13.. Due to the said incident, about 100 Railway employees posted at Barvadeeh Railway station had started their protest/agitation including of Shri A.K. Sharma Technician, L & W, Barvadeeh and a result thereof in stoppage all said movement both in up down direction in CIC section of Dhanbad Division from 05.00 hrs to 13.05 hrs on 01.12.2016. An FIR No.211/2016 dated 01.12.2016 was registered u/s 146, 174 of Railway Act against Shri A.K. Sharma (applicant) and 100 unknown Railway servants.
14.. It is the case of applicant that he was convicted by the Trial Court vide order dt. 26.08.2018 passed in Criminal case no. 719/2016 19/2016 arising out of F.I.R. No.211/2016 under section 146, 174 of Railway Act and fine of Rs. 1000/ 1000/- each for both the 8 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 offence was awarded and in default thereof to go one month simple imprisonment for default. The applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 47/2012 47/2012 before the Sessions Judge Latehar and the Appellate Court vide its judgment dt. 18.06.2022 has allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction. Judgment & order dt. 26.08.2018 passed by the Trial Court. The acquittal recorded by the appellate court is on merit.
15.. Perusal of Special Report dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure - R/1) indicates that a team of Railway officers comprising of the then DTM/BRKA, ASC/BRKA and ADME/BRKA had talked Patna Bench with a group of eight agitating railway employees mainly Shri Awadh Awadhesh Sharma, Shri Vinay Kumar, Shri Rajkumar, Shri Chotan Singh, Shri Upender Ram, Shri Rajendra Saha, Shri Krishna Madhav and Shri Rakesh Kumar and a result of prolonged talk, at 13.05 PM train movement was restored in both the directions.
16.. In the above backdrop ckdrop the disciplinary authority reached on a conclusion that Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma was instrumental in stoppage of rail movement and disrupted the work so as to paralyze the running of train services and thus affected public and national interest and and retention of applicant in Railway Service is undesirable and the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 05.12.2016 in exercise of power conferred in him under rule 14(ii) of Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968 has ordered to impose removal upon applicant applicant from service with immediate effect. 9 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142
17.. Applicant has filed an appeal before the Appellate authority on 19.12.2016 and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure-3) (Annexure 3) has modified the order of Disciplinary authority of removal from service service to compulsory retirement with 2/3 pension and 2/3 gratuity.
18.. A Revision Petition dated 29.03.2017 was filed by the applicant against the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated 05.12.2016 passed by Disciplinary Authority Authority wherein he has mentioned that his date of superannuation is 31.07.2024 and prayed for reinstatement in Patna Bench service instead of compulsory retirement. However the Revisionary Authority vide its order dated 12.05.2017 after reviewing order of the Appellate Au Authority thority passed the following order:"Compulsory Retirement from the date of removal from Railway Service with all retirement benefits as admissible."
19.. Applicant's prayer for reinstatement in the service, at this stage, became infructuous keeping in view his date of superannuation was 31.07.2024 and in all probabilities he has been superannuated on 31.07.2024 if he was not ordered for compulsory retirement/removal from service.
20.. We may presume that the all retirement benefits as admissible to the applicant have have been granted to the applicant in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Revisionary Authority.
21.. It is understood that discriminatory treatment was adopted by the Disciplinary Authority on invoking the power under Rule 10 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 14(ii) of the Railway Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 only against applicant in spite of the fact that Railway authorities had made conversation with at least 8 persons whose name are mentioned at para 15 above. It is beyond comprehension that how the railway para-15 authorities have chosen chosen out only applicant and none else. It is amounting to malice in law.
22.. The possibility to conduct regular enquiry was not explored as there may be ample documentary as well as oral evidence were available with the Disciplinary Authority under Railway Servi Service ce (D&A) Rules, 1968. Railway Services were not stopped only on Patna Bench Barvadeeh Railway station but also has cascading Effect and evidence may be procured from other services also.
23.. The applicant has already been acquitted in criminal case initiated after investigation investigation FIR No.211/2016 u/s 147, 174 of the Railway Act which pertains to almost similar charge of illegal stoppage of train movement.
24.. The action of Disciplinary Authority to initiate the proceedings under Rule 14 (vi) is not sustainable in law as suffered from malice in law.
25.. There is nothing on record made available by the respondents in their written statement to enable us to reach a conclusion that applicant was leader of all agitating Railway employees and solely responsible of stoppage of Railway traffi trafficc on the date of incident.
26.. Now we are in 2025 and date of incident happens to be of 01.12.2016 and therefore, at this stage no departmental 11 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021 051/00142 proceedings could be initiated against him as he has already been removed from service but also cross the age of su superannuation perannuation on 31.07.2024. As of now it is more than eight years have been passed to the date of incident. Thus no useful purpose will be served to remand back the matter to initiate departmental inquiry afresh.
27.. The charges that were levelled in the FIR aand nd criminal case vis--a-vis vis and charge of that become ground from removal under Rule 14(ii) of the Rules are identical and consequential orders thereto. Since he has been acquitted in criminal case thus he Patna Bench deserves to be exonerated in the departmental proce proceedings.
28.. As a result of above analysis, order dt. 05.12.2016 passed by Disciplinary Authority, order dt. 27.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dt. 12.05.2017 passed by the Revisionary Authority are hereby set aside.
29.. As a result thereof, OA is allowed with the following directions:
directions:-
i. As a consequence of quashing of removal from service order and compulsory retirement order, the applicant should be treated as reinstated from the date of removal till age of supposed superannuation.
ii. But the Tribunal is fully aware the fact that applicant was not rendered his service claiming such period, hence, this Tribunal will refrain to pass any order with regards to back wages.12 O.A. No. 051/00142/2021
051/00142 iii. However, since the applicant's removal/ compulsory retirement has been en held to violation of Procedure & Rules hence he cannot be held guilty/responsible to non non-rendering rendering his service during this period. Therefore, we find that he is entitled to other retirement benefits by fixation of his notional increment of every year as he might have gained if he remained in service till his superannuation. Thus his pension may be refixed accordingly. iv. This order is to be complied within 90 days from receipt of the copy by respondents.
Patna Bench
30.. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumarr Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
du/-