Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sayed Dawood Ahmed vs Central Railway on 6 May, 2026
1 OA No. 405/2022
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
Original Application No. 405/2022
Order reserved on: 25/03/2026
Date of order: 06/05/2026.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri Mr. Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Shri Sayed Dawood Ahmed,
Age 49 years, ex. Khalasi under SSE (EM) GPR of
Pune Division of Central Railway, Pune- 411 001.
R/o House No. B/199, Lane No. 08,
Near Ideal School, Gulam Ali Nagar,
Hadapsar, Pune- 411 028 (Mah).
Mob. No. 8796947264
Email Id: - [email protected] ...Applicant
(By advocate: Shri D.N. Karande)
Versus
1. Union of India through,
The General Manager,
Central Railway,
2nd Floor of General Manager's Office,
Mumbai CST- 400 001 (MS).
2. The Chief Personal Officer,
Central Railway,
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode=
110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7,
Rashmi
serialNumber=
5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740
9a4527c20, telephoneNumber=
bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03
a11e5f3ff, title=0779
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30'
Personnel Branch
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
1st Floor of GM's Office,
CMST,
Mumbai - 400 001.
2 OA No. 405/2022
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Pune Division,
Pune- 411 001 (MS).
4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Divisional Railway,
Manager's office, Central Railway
Pune - 411 001.
5. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Divisional Railway Manager's Office,
Central Railway,
Pune - 411 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sharanya Sinha)
ORDER
Per: Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Applicant before this Tribunal has challenged the impugned punishment dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure A-1) by which penalty of "Removal from service with immediate effect without any compensate allowance" has been enforced. The aforesaid order was challenged in appeal and revision by the applicant, however, vide impugned order dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure A-2), appeal was Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= rejected and further revision was also rejected vide order dated bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 28.03.2022 (Annexure A-3).3 OA No. 405/2022
2. This is the second round of litigation, at the instance of the applicant before this Tribunal. In earlier round of litigation, the applicant has filed OA No. 685/2016 in which following facts have been recorded by this Tribunal:
2.1 The applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi and was subsequently promoted as Junior Clerk. He was posted to the office of Senior Sectional Engineer (Electrical), GPR (Ghorpuri), Pune from 17.10.2007. He was assigned the store work of the unit (depot) of which Shri S.K. Shukla, Senior Sectional Engineer was the in-
charge. The applicant claims that Shri Shukhla misused his power, instigated his staff for filing complaint against him. He was also asked to handle work of Mahesh Jamdade, Head Clerk, who dealt with passes/PTOs up to 18.05.2009, when he was transferred to another office. He also claims that at the time of his transfer, Shri Jamdade did not properly hand over charge of his work with account of passes /PTOs to the applicant.
2.2 It is further claimed that Shri Shukla reported to his higher Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, authorities i.e. Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (G) {'ADEE Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' (G)'}, PA to conduct fact finding inquiry about missing Passes/PTOs Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 and their misuse. ADEE (G) conducted the inquiry who had earlier issued the charge-sheet (Annex A-5) against the applicant on 4 OA No. 405/2022 04.05.2010. Thus, that Authority played the role of Investigator and Judge in the case of the applicant which is not permitted under Article 311 of the Constitution.
2.3 The applicant claims that the charges levelled against him are frivolous, fabricated, arbitrary, malafide and without application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and without considering the status and duties of the applicant.
2.4 It has been further alleged that the applicant alone was held responsible for the missing passes/PTOs and their misuse by outsiders but this is not based on facts. The applicant claims that the copy of the fact-finding inquiry report dated 31.03.2010 mentioned in the charge-sheet was not supplied to him.
2.5 It has also been claimed that the Articles of charges have not been properly framed, they are ambiguously worded and not specific about note/duty of the applicant in the alleged missing of the passes/PTOs and their misuse by the outsiders, etc. He further claims that the passes / PTOs were in the custody of Shri Shukla but Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, the chargesheet specifically mentions against the applicant. Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 2.6 The Departmental enquiry conducted against him was only a formality adopted by the Disciplinary Authority. During the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry Officer did not allow him to examine/cross- 5 OA No. 405/2022
examine the prosecution witnesses and completed the inquiry proceedings without following the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
2.7 The Disciplinary Authority imposed on the applicant the penalty of "removal from service" without supplying a copy of the inquiry report. Also, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are without any reason. There is no mention about wilful attitude and fabrication of evidence created by Shri Shukla and they have been ignored by the Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, this OA has been filed.
3. The Tribunal further recorded the stand of the official respondents in the earlier round of litigation in following paragraphs:-
3.1 Shri S.K. Shukla, Senior Sectional Engineer and in-charge of the depot had superiority complex and out of jealousy instigated the depot staff to hold the applicant for missing of responsible passes/PTOs and their misuse.
3.2 The respondents have admitted in para 12 of the reply that the Digitally signed by Rashmi applicant was not solely responsible for missing of passes and DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 PTOs. Although, it has been claimed by the respondents that the charges were framed not only on the basis of report of SSE (Elect./Maint.) but after proper inspection of fact-finding inquiry by 6 OA No. 405/2022 ADEE (G), these reports were not supplied to the applicant.
Therefore, the OA should be allowed.
3.3 The applicant has also attempted to benefit from the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No.7530/1996 on 12.04.1996 (State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Harbhajan Singh Greasy) in which it was held that procedure of the Disciplinary Proceedings was found to be faulty, based on this, the respondent had been dismissed from service, admission of the delinquent had not been taken in writing and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law and pending the inquiry, the delinquent must be deemed to be under suspension. However, the respondent was not entitled to get back wages.
3.4 The depot in charge of the GPR OSN Depot i.e. Shri S.K. Shukla was competent to assign the work to the staff working under him for proper supervision and maintenance of discipline as provided under Rule 3 (i) and 2 (i) of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966.Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Therefore, it was the duty of the staff, including the applicant, to Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' follow the instructions of the depot incharge and the allegation of the Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 applicant about misuse of power and instigating complaint against him by fabricating the evidence are denied in toto. 7 OA No. 405/2022 3.5 After the transfer of Shri Mahesh Jamdade, Head Clerk, the Depot in-charge instructed the applicant to carry out the work of passes/PTOs. Handing over of the charge between Shri Jamdade and the applicant was done verbally.
3.6 Since, it was the duty of the depot in-charge to inform Higher Authorities immediately about loss, misuse, theft etc. of passes/PTOs, lodging of complaint with the Inspector of Railway Protection Force on 13.01.2010 (Exhibit R-4) was necessary and hence, it was done. Also, about the missing passes, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted by ADEE (G) PA dated 31.03.2010. 3.7 In the fact-finding report, the present applicant was found primarily responsible for missing and misuse of passes/PTOs.
Therefore, he was issued the charge-sheet on 04.05.2010 by following the relevant rules. But, the applicant was not solely held responsible for missing and misuse of the passes/PTOS. Along with him, Shri Mahesh Jamdade, Head Clerk also was held secondarily responsible for the missing / misuse of the passes / PTOs during his Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, tenure and a penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in time scale of Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' pay for one year with cumulative effect was imposed on him. Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 3.8 However, a copy of the Inquiry Report submitted by IPE / GIT was not under the given applicant under the provisions of Right to 8 OA No. 405/2022 Information Act, as it amounted to disclosure of information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This was fully justified. 3.9 The Articles of charges against the applicant were framed not only based on the report of SSE (Elect./Maint.) GPR but after inspection of fact-finding inquiry conducted by ADEE. 3.10 As depot in-charge while signature of Shri Shukla was necessary for the passes / PTOs before issuing them, custody of the passes / PTO Books was with the dealing staff under lock and key i.e. the present applicant.
3.11 It is agreed that the copy of the inquiry report was not served upon the applicant before imposing the penalty of removal from service. But the Appellate Authority also gave a personal hearing to the applicant on 21.01.2013 before passing the appeal. Since, no evidence was produced by the applicant in his defence, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary as well as the Authority decide the Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Mercy Appeal. In view of the above, the OA should be dismissed.
Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
4. The said OA was allowed with following observations vide order dated 07.06.2019:
9 OA No. 405/2022"The OA is allowed. The penalty order dated 17.12.2012 (Annex A-1) issued by the Disciplinary Authority, orders dated 04.02.2013, 17.07.2013 and 02.08.2016 issued by the Appellate Authority, the Revisionary Authority and the Authority who decided the Mercy Appeal, respectively, are set aside. The case is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. ADEE (G) PA Office of the DRM, Electrical Branch, (Genl), Central Railway, Pune to get the inquiry into the charge-sheet served upon the applicant conducted afresh by providing him copies of the fact finding report which had noticed lapses on the part of the applicant and also a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the RPF/GIT and on the basis of such fresh inquiry to take appropriate decision.
This process should be completed in a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Since, the applicant was removed from service by the order of 17.12.2012 and thereafter, has not been in service of the respondents, till decision is taken based on fresh inquiry to be conducted, the applicant may be treated under deemed suspension. However, for this period, the applicant will not be entitled for payment of any back wages. The parties to bear their own costs".
5. Thereafter, communication dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure A-6) was issued to the applicant for providing the documents as mentioned in the said letter.
6. Further, by communication dated 10.12.2020, the Disciplinary Authority by providing the copy of findings received from the Inquiry Officer provided the same to the applicant and informed that Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= applicant is free to file further representation, if any, to the 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Disciplinary Authority.10 OA No. 405/2022
7. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication dated 10.12.2020, applicant has submitted representation dated 24.12.2020 and thereafter, impugned punishment order dated 04.01.2021 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
8. The aforesaid order was challenged by the applicant, by filing appeal dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure A-9) in detail with facts and grounds which was rejected by impugned order dated 25.02.2021 against which the revision was submitted which was also rejected vide order dated 28.03.2022.
9. The basic contention of the applicant is that looking to the communication dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure A-6), it is clear that RUD-2 i.e. ADEE(G) PA's inspection dated 13.02.2010, is the document mentioned in the chargesheet Annexure-III at Sr. No. 2.
However, the aforesaid letter clearly mentions the fact that "ADEE(G) PA's inspection dated 23.12.2009 and 20.02.2010 mentioned in RUD-2 has been searched from the available records of this office, but it is not traceable".
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7,
10. Under these circumstances according to the applicant, once Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 there is no document as mentioned in RUD-2 are available, then it cannot be said that charges can be said to be proved against the 11 OA No. 405/2022 applicant, and in fact, it is the case of no evidence and therefore, impugned punishment order is liable to be set aside.
11. It is further stated that the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority without going into the grounds taken in the appeal/revision, passed the impugned orders mechanically and therefore, same are also unsustainable in the eye of law.
12. After notice, the official respondents have filed the reply and contested the OA.
12.1 It is stated that a detailed departmental inquiry was conducted and a penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority on 17.12.2012 which in turn was confirmed not only by the Appellate Authority on 04.02.2013 but also, the Revisionary Authority on 17.07.2013.
12.2 The orders were challenged before the Tribunal by filing of an Original Application being O. A. No. 685 of 2016 which was finally decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 07.06.2019, whereby this Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashed the order dated Digitally signed by Rashmi 17.12.2012 of Disciplinary Authority, 04.02.2013 of Appellate DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Authority, 17.07.2013 of Revisionary authority and 02.08.2016 of the Authority who decided the Mercy Appeal and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority at Central Railway, Pune to get 12 OA No. 405/2022 conduct a fresh inquiry against the applicant by providing him copies of fact finding report.
12.3 It was further made clear that the inquiry had to be completed within 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Since, the order of removal has been set aside, the applicant was to be treated to be under deemed suspension and the question of the manner in which the period between the date of removal in 2012 and the quashing of the order of removal from service by this Tribunal on 07.06.2019, would not make the applicant entitle to any back wages.
12.4 Thereafter, departmental proceedings were conducted, a careful perusal of proceedings would show that the grave charges against the applicant had come to be conclusively proved. It is pertinent to mention here that the fact-finding inquiry report which this Tribunal had directed should be handed over to the applicant could not be so handed over since, it was missing. However, the evidence which has come out during the course of the inquiry in the humble submission of the respondents is more than sufficient to Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, meet the charge of preponderance of probability. Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12.5 In the light of the aforesaid factual position, the inquiry report would show that the evidence collected was more than sufficient to 13 OA No. 405/2022 meet the requirement of imposition of penalty of removal from service which has been done.
12.6 The respondents further submitted that Shri Jamdade, who was also clearly responsible for the lapses could not be proceeded against since, he had expired on 11.05.2017. 12.7 A Major Penalty chargesheet was issued to Shri S. K. Shukla, the then SSE(EM)GPR vide Memorandum No. DEE/G/KOP/DAR/SKS dated 04.01.2013 for Missing of Passes and for shortage of stores to the tune of Rs.36,79,235/- and for excess Rs.31,050/- found during Stock verification. 12.8 As per Inquiry report, no malafide intention of Shri S. K. Shukla was involved in the case hence, the charges were kept aside by Disciplinary Authority vide office L. No. DEE/G/PA/DAR/SKS dated 06.02.2015. As the Stock Verification sheet was not closed by Shri S. K. Shukla, his settlement dues amounting to Rs.21,25,511/-
is withheld for which Shri S. K. Shukla had filed O.A. No. 200/00726/2017 before the Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur.
Digitally signed by Rashmi12.9 It is further submitted that the fact-Finding report of an DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Independent Officer (the Inspector/RPF) was taken into consideration by the Inquiry officer during fresh inquiry and brought out in the conclusion of Inquiry Report, which is reproduced below: - 14 OA No. 405/2022
"The statement of RPF inspector investigating the case has also clearly mentioned that the Applicant was responsible for the missing passes Refer reply to Q1 to Q8 of Cross examination of Shri Suresh Kumar Atri Intelligence Officer SIB PNVL on 01/10/2020 over the phone Annexure - C2 & 3) and Shri Shashikant Shukla, being an in-charge of the Depot is also responsible for the missing passes. He has concluded that the pass books were deliberately displaced to hide the misappropriation of the passes. He also replied that the investigation done is not a detail investigation, it is a report till the time he made the investigation as the investigation was stopped by DEE(G)PA Refer reply to Q1 to Q5 of Examination of Shri Suresh Kumar Atri Intelligence Officer SIB PNVL on 01/10/2020 over the phone. (Annexure-C-1). The Inquiry proceeding completed by the Inquiry Officer by following the rules of Natural justice Refer Annexure A-7 last para(pg.49) which is reproduced below: The CE has been given records of all documents sought by him. His request for nomination of ARE and later change of ARE was also granted. Witnesses like Shri Shukla (retd) travelled from Jabalpur and Shri Rameshwaram travelled from Hubli to attend the inquires on time but the CE always reported at 02.30pm with his ARE for enquiry scheduled at 10:30am. Yet, enquiry was conducted. As per findings of Inquiry Officer, all the nine charges levelled against DE are proved.
As per Chief Commercial Manager's report, received from CCM(PMICSTM vide L. No. C.CRS.
BB.150.Travel details dated 26/03/2010 (Annexure - D1 & D2) the pass No. 790096, 790097, 790098, 790099, 790100, 790300 and 965300 were misused and misappropriated. Reservations were done on missing passes by Outsiders several times from different reservation centres for different locations. The passes mentioned in the reports are missing in the year 2009 during the tenure of Applicant. From the inquiry proceedings Findings of the Enquiry report and Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, conclusion of Inquiry report, the inquiry officer has Rashmi brought out in detail the misuse and misappropriation serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' of passes done by the Applicant. The custody of Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Pass/PTO with the applicant was also agreed by the witnesses during the inquiry proceedings. The passes issued by the Applicant and the blank passes numbering next to the passes issued are missing of the same pass book are brought out in detail in the findings of Inquiry officer. The complete inquiry report 15 OA No. 405/2022 containing 11 pages with 211 enclosures are enclosed in which the charges levelled against the Applicant are proved with all witnesses. (Annexure E-1 to E-222). Hence, this is not an no Evidence case."
12.10 It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has carefully gone through the Inquiry report, entire DAR case file and written brief dated 24.12.2020 submitted by the applicant. Since, the misconduct was grave in nature causing huge revenue loss to Railway, the applicant was not found fit to be retained in Railway Service. Hence, the penalty of "Removal from Service" was imposed upon the applicant.
12.11 It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority has carefully gone through the Inquiry report, entire DAR case file and appeal dated 31.01.2021 and as desired by the applicant, the applicant was called for personal hearing. But, during personal hearing, no new evidence was brought by the applicant to prove himself not guilty. Hence, the penalty of "Removal from Service" was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
12.12 Further, the revisionary authority has also given an Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= opportunity of personal hearing, but during personal hearing, no new 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 point has been brought out by the applicant. The charges levelled are serious and considering the gravity of the charges and keeping 16 OA No. 405/2022 in mind all the aspects of the case, the revisionary authority upheld the order of Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 12.13 It is further submitted that the fact-finding Inquiry of an Independent Authority (Inspector/RPF) was incomplete. During inquiry proceedings of 26.11.2019 Shri S.K.Shukla in his reply to Q17 regarding custodian of Pass/PTO has replied that the pass books/PTO's were in the custody of Shri Jhamdade and Shri Syed.
They brought it to me for signature and kept them in their custody after issue of passes.
12.14 During cross examination of Shri Suresh Kumar Atri, Intelligence Officer on 01.10.2020 over phone also held the Applicant (Jr. Clerk) responsible for misuse and misappropriation of Pass/PTO. In his reply to Q.1 replied that during investigation found many pass leaves without signature of the Depot In-charge which gives reason to believe that the Jr. Clerk might have taken advantage or manipulated the pass issued to the Railway employees or he might have made some misappropriation with the records. Also, Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, gives reason to believe that the Jr. Clerk having custody of the pass Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' book and records might have misappropriated the records. Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12.15 It is submitted that the statement of RPF inspector investigating the case has also clearly mentioned that the Applicant 17 OA No. 405/2022 was responsible for the missing passes and Shri Shashikant Shukla, being an in-charge of the Depot, is also responsible for the missing passes. Shri Shukla is only responsible for negligence towards duties while signing Pass/PTO's but the pass books were misused and deliberately misplaced to hide the misappropriation of the passes by the Applicant which are proved in the inquiry by all the witnesses.
13. On the basis of the reply, the official respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the OA. Thereafter, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder was filed by the applicant and respondents respectively.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Karande, vehemently argued that in pursuance of order dated 07.06.2019 in OA No. 685/2015, communication dated 06.09.2019 was issued to the applicant, in which it has been categorically mentioned that ADEE(G) PA's inspection dated 23.12.2009 and 20.02.2010 is not traceable Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, which is mentioned in RUD.
Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
16. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the charges levelled against the applicant are proved in departmental inquiry and it is the case of no evidence.18 OA No. 405/2022
17. It is further submitted that in respect of allegations, an independent inquiry was conducted by the Inspector, RPF (railway protection force) which is clear from Annexure-RJ-1 dated 03.03.2010, in which the involvement of Shri Shashikant Shukla was also recorded. However, said officer has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry, whereas the applicant has been punished with severe punishment of "Removal from Service without any compensatory allowance".
18. The manner and method in which the inquiry was conducted against the applicant and punishment is imposed, is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
19. On the other hand, Ms. Sharanya Sinha on the basis of reply and written note of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently argued that in pursuance of order passed by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation in OA No. 685/2016, due, proper and reasonable opportunity was provided to the applicant by supplying relevant documents and only thereafter, the punishment Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, order has been passed taking note of the charges proved against Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' the applicant during the inquiry, which was affirmed by the Appellate Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Authority and Revisionary Authority.19 OA No. 405/2022
20. It is submitted that there is a limited scope of interference by this Tribunal in the departmental proceedings.
21. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 and in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749.
22. It is submitted that looking to the charges proved against the applicant, the appropriate punishment has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which needs no interference by this Tribunal.
23. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is true that there is a limited scope of judicial review in the departmental proceedings.
24. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and P. Gunasekaran (supra), this Tribunal requires only to examine whether the procedure prescribed under the Rules have been complied by the Digitally signed by Rashmi departmental authorities or not.
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
25. For the aforesaid limited purpose, firstly, if we take note of the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure-A- 20 OA No. 405/2022
2) which can be certainly said to be a non-speaking order and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced here and below:
"This office has issued Major penalty charge sheet vide Memorandum No. DEE/G/PA/DAR/SD dtd. 04/05/2010 for negligence towards duties in maintaining Pass/PTO records.
I have carefully gone through the entire DAR case file, charge memorandum, Inquiry report and your appeal dtd. 30/01/2021. As desired by you in your appeal, you were called for personal hearing. However, during personal hearing no new evidence has been brought by you to prove yourself not guilty.
I therefore uphold the penalty of "Removal from Service" imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Under rules 25 of the RS(D&A) Rules, 1968, revision petition against these order lies to ADRM PA. The revision petition shall be preferred in your own name and under your own signature and presented within 45 days from the date you receive the orders to the Revising Authority, sending a copy of the same to the undersigned."
26. Looking to the aforesaid order, it is clear that neither the grounds raised by the applicant in appeal memo has been recorded in the impugned order, nor any discussion has been made on the grounds raised by the applicant and directly conclusion has been recorded upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
27. When the appellant has raised the various grounds including the ground of not providing the documents mentioned in the RUD as Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 mentioned in the letter dated 06.09.2019 is not traceable, then at least it was obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to record and consider the effect of the aforesaid non-traceable document 21 OA No. 405/2022 which is part of RUD-2 and the other circumstances and grounds taken in the appeal memo.
28. At this stage, it is relevant here to take note of Rule 22 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which provides consideration of appeal.
29. Looking to the impugned order and the consideration made by the Appellate Authority, it is clear that the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 22, and in fact, there is no consideration in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, the impugned appellate order is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside.
29. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned appellate order is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside, consequently, revisionary authority dated 28.03.2022 is also liable to be set aside.
30. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order while taking into consideration the Digitally signed by Rashmi facts and ground mentioned in the appeal memo dated 30.01.2021 DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 (Annexure-A-9) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.22 OA No. 405/2022
31. With the aforesaid, the OA is allowed to the extent indicated above with no orders as to cost.
32. All Pending MAs, if any, stands closed.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Umesh Gajankush)
Member(A) Member(J)
R.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b07149740 9a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b03 a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.05.12 15:32:30+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0