Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P.K. Unnikrishnan vs Union Of India Represented By The on 18 December, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 1133 of 2011
Tuesday, this the 18th day of December, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
P.K. Unnikrishnan,
S/o. Raman Nair,
Loco Pilot (Goods),
Southern Railway/Calicut, Palghat Division,
Residing at : Kampivalappil House,
Chemancherry Post,
Calicut District : 673 304 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
v e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by the
General Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O.,
Chennai : 600 003
2. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad: 678 002
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad: 678 002 ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. V.V. Joshi)
This application having been heard on 30.11.2012, the Tribunal on 18.12.12
delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant while working as Loco Pilot (Goods), Southern Railway, Palghat Division, was charge sheeted on 24.11.2010 for expressing his unwillingness to work as Co-Pilot in Train No.MAJN/LE on 31.10.2010. After considering his written explanation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed on him the penalty of withholding of increment due on 01.07.2011 for a period of 24 months without future effect vide order dated 04.02.2011, which was confirmed in appeal. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A for the following reliefs :
(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and A2 and quash the same;
(ii)Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom, as if A1 and A2 had not been issued at all;
(ii) Award costs of and incidental to this application;
(iii) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The applicant contended that there are no orders demanding Loco Pilot (Goods) to work in the capacity as an Assistant Loco Pilot or for operating a Co-Pilot, except in express trains like Rajadhani, Superfast trains etc. and during General Manager's Inspection Special. Therefore, the expression of the unwillingness of the applicant to work as a Co-Pilot (Assistant Loco Pilot) cannot be said to be a misconduct. The penalty at Annexures A-1 and A-2 has been imposed on the applicant on account of circumstances created by the respondents themselves for which the applicant cannot be found fault with. He had not objected to work as a Loco Pilot of even the very same Light Engine.
3. Per contra, the respondents contended that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of revision. Hence, the O.A is premature and is liable to be dismissed. When no rest cleared Assistant Loco Pilots are available to work as Assistant Loco Pilots, the available Loco Pilots are booked to work as Co-Pilot in order to avoid dislocation of train services. Such arrangements are done in the exigencies of service only and are inevitable in public interest. The applicant was booked to work only as Co-Pilot and not as an Assistant Loco Pilot. Such arrangement does not denigrate the status of the Loco Pilot. As against the strength of 62 Assistant Loco Pilots, the strength of Loco Pilots are 70. In exigencies of service, when adequate number of rest cleared Assistant Loco Pilots are not available, Loco Pilots are booked as Co-Pilots. The applicant being a Loco Running staff, he should have risen upto the occasion to work in the train so as to avoid cancellation of train services. The Co-Pilot working in the high speed trains are only Loco Pilots (Passenger) and not Assistant Loco Pilot. The applicant cannot take shelter under the terminology of Co-Pilot as an excuse for disobeying orders. It is only because the applicant was a Loco Pilot, he was asked to work as Co-Pilot which is not lower in grade. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have been passed with proper application of mind and are fully legal and valid. The attempt of the applicant to equate the post of Assistant Loco Pilot with Co-Pilot, which is not a post but a status while two Loco Pilots are manning a locomotive, is not correct.
4. We have heard Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.V.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The fact that the applicant had mentioned in the call book as not willing when advised to work as Co-Pilot in Train No. MAJN/LE at 20.40 hrs. on 31.10.2010 is not disputed. The contention of the applicant that there are no orders designating Loco Pilot (Goods) to work as Co-Pilot is hyper-technical. It displays a argumentative disposition on his part. It is not the case of the applicant that he was being asked to work as Co-Pilot very often. He was not asked to work as an Assistant Loco Pilot but as a Co-Pilot which he should not have taken as below his dignity as Loco Pilot. Owing to the shortage of Assistant Loco Pilots, occasionally, the Loco Pilots,who are more in number than Assistant Loco Pilots, are being asked in exigencies of service to work as Co-Pilot to avoid dislocation of train services. There is nothing on record to show that he was not aware of this situation, but he put the blame for shortage of Assistant Loco Pilots on the administration. In the interest of travelling public and the organization which provided him with a job and carrier, he should not have stood on prestige to show his unwillingness to work as Co-Pilot. This tendency towards insubordination has to be nipped in the bud. He could have done the job that was expected of him and taken up his grievance with the higher authority in an appropriate manner subsequently. This should have shown his devotion to duty and a high sense of responsibility on his part. In fact the Loco Pilots (Passenger) are working in high speed trains as Co-Pilots. Being a Loco Running Staff, it was the primary duty of the applicant to avoid dislocation of train services. He is not justified in equating the post of Assistant Loco Pilot with Co-Pilot, which is not a post but a status while two Loco Pilots are manning a locomotive. The applicant cannot be commented for his behaviour in the given circumstances. Devotion to duty is conspicuous by its absence, on the part of the applicant. Instead, there is exaggerated status consciousness on his part. If the respondents have treated his conduct as a misconduct in the larger interest of the Railway and the travelling public and took appropriate action as per law, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. No violation of law or procedure has been established by the applicant. However, we would observe that it is not mandatory to prefer a revision petition before approaching this Tribunal. If the applicant expresses regret over his conduct and approaches the Revisional Authority by a review petition within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order, the Revisional Authority may condone the delay in filing the review petition and take a lenient view to impose a lighter penalty.
6. With the above observations, the O.A is dismissed as having no merit. No order as to costs.
(Dated, the 18th December, 2012)
K. GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
cvr.