Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs K.Vijayaraghavan
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934
OP (CAT).No. 1892 of 2012 (Z)
-----------------------------
AGAINST ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 IN OA.899/2010 of CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
................
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:
-----------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,PARK TOWN.P.O,CHENNAI-3.
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION,PALAKKAD.
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION,PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE O.A.:
-------------------------------------------
K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN,
S/O.SANKARAN
(EX-LOCO PILOT/GOODS/SOUTHERN RAILWAY/CALICUT)
RESIDING AT KAYARATTU THODI HOUSE,KALLIPPADAM.P.O
SHORNUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679 122.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2012, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 1892 of 2012 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF the O.A.899/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT
(ERNAKULAM BENCH)ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM BEARING
NO:J/M226/DAR/2687/KGQ DATED 4.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ADVICE BEARING
No:J/M226/DAR/2687.KGQ DATED 19/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE BEARINGNo:J/M226/DAR/2687.KGQ
DATED12/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED
3/10/2009
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF 5 WITNESS RECORDED IN
THE DEPARTMENT ENQUIRY.
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO:J/M226/DAR/KGQ
DATED 5/10/2009.
ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/10/2009
ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF the REPRESENTATION DATED 19/10/2009
ADDRESED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/10/2009
ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN IN O.A.899/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT (ERNAKULAM BENCH)
ALONG WITH ANNEXURE(S).
ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 6 OF DISCIPLINE &
APPEAL RULES 1968.
EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN
O.A.899/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT (ERNAKULAM BENCH)
EXT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN IN THE O.A.899/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT
(ERNAKULAM BENCH)
ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD LETTER NO.99/SAFETY(A &
3.83(1).
OP (CAT).No. 1892 of 2012 (Z)
ANNNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE CONTAINING GRS RULE
3.83(1)
EXT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 IN O.A.899/2010 OF
THE CAT (ERNAKULAM BENCH).
EXT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS
DATED 18/9/2009.
EXT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTER DATED 28.5.2001.
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(CAT) No. 1892 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
Aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), Ernakulam Bench wherein CAT directed to release all the benefits accrued to the applicant, as if Annexures A2 and A3 were not issued at all, and further directed to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of consideration of objections filed by the applicant to the enquiry report, this Original Petition is filed by the respondents in the O.A.
2. According to the petitioners, there were serious charges against the respondent and there was no justification in the finding of the authority concerned that there is no proper assessment of evidence as to the charge of not calling out the aspects of signals against the respondent. The entire materials brought before the Enquiry Officer ultimately pointed out only unauthorised entry and not calling out the aspect of OP(CAT) No.1892 of 2012 -:2:- signals to the Loco Pilot. Subsequent to the serving of a copy of enquiry report directing the respondent to submit objection statement if any, though the respondent sought extension of 4 days time on the ground of hospitalisation, such extension of time was not granted. Though the applicant/respondent raised several issues including violation of principles of natural justice, disciplinary authority did not refer to any of the points raised by the respondent and proceeded to issue penalty order without waiting for the defence statement. This was opined as violation of principles of natural justice and we do not have any second opinion so far as the opinion of CAT.
3. No doubt, an appeal also came to be filed, but the appellate authority though observed the past history of the respondent herein being punished twice, failed to observe that it was not for similar offence. Appellate authority also did not look into the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority reducing penalty of removal of the respondent from service to that of compulsory retirement was also opined as not reasonable and justified. OP(CAT) No.1892 of 2012 -:3:-
4. Though learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convince us that the charges levelled against the respondent were of serious nature, it would have endangered some lives but he is unable to point out how the opinion of CAT that only authorised entry charge alone was proved.
5. In that view of the matter, looking at the direction given by CAT, we are of the opinion, no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the petitioners as the petitioners are at liberty to proceed further from the stage of consideration of objections filed by the respondent applicant and do the needful in the light of the observations made as stated above.
Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, the Original Petition does not warrant any interference and accordingly dismissed.
Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/03/07 OP(CAT) No.1892 of 2012 -:4:-