Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
O P Kulshresht vs M/O Railways on 5 April, 2022
(OA No.764/2016 (1) Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 0.A.No.764/2016 Reserved on:25.03.2022 Pronounced on: ok low Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A) Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J) 0.P.Kulshresht 'S/o Shri Uma Shankar Kulshresth a/a 54 years R/o D-109 Lal Kothi Marg, Shivad area Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. Presently posted as "Commercial Inspector" under Sr. i division, Jaipur. D.C.M., Jaipur P _. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri Kapil Sharma) Versus ion of India through General Manager, North . We i ffi Jawah Circle Western Railway, H.Q. Office, /awanar ; jJagatpura, Jaipur. Chief Commercial Manager, North Western Railway, * +H.Q. Office, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur. pivisional Railway Manager, Jaipur Division of North 3. western Railway, D.R.M.Office, Power House Road, jaipur. 4 A.D.R.M, Jaipur Division of North Western Railway, D.R.M.Office, Power House Road, Jaipur. 5 Sr. Divisional Commercial Railway Manager, Jaipur . ; ver Division of North Western Railway, D.R.M. Office, Pow d, Jaipur. House Ree ° _ Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri M.K.Meena) (OA No.764/2016 (2) ORDER Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 29.01.15 (A/1) and the order dated 34.12.15 (A/1 (a)) passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority respectively.
(b) Respondents may further be directed to restore the position of the petitioner which Stank was before giving effect to the impugned order in question as if no such impugned order been passed. Apart from that respondent may be directed to pay differential amount of pay along with the interest which has reduced due to the aforesaid impugned orders in question and also pay all consequential benefits if any has accrued in favour of the petitioner during the interregnum period.
(c) Any other order which may be deem fit and proper may kindly be passed by this Hon'ble tribunal as the facts and circumstances of the case."
3 The applicant was served with a charge memo, alleging the following charges of misconducts on the part of the applicant:
1 while working as CMI/BKI on 05.07.2007 he was to attend AWR station during the visit of Hon'ble m.R. but he disobeyed the instructions and did not reach at AWR station.
o.P.Kulsreshtha sion 2 sh. . was placed under suspens om 04.07:2007 to 24.07.2007 vide SF 1 & SF 4 ronec/308/207/8 | dated 04.07.2007 & 24.7.2007 respectively but he fraudulently claimed his presence | | (OA No.764/2016 (3) | during the period in the absentee statement and full pay was drawn by him.
3) While working as CMI Control from December 2007 to 14.1.2009 he failed to make the entries of data and the information received by him from stations resulting into obstruction in the management. _ While working as CMI/complaint from 25.7.2009 to 11.2.2010 he did not deal complaint cases and public complaints were not disposed off leaving adverse image of the Railway Administration among the Rail users.
5. He was transferred from JP to RE and was spared on 11.2.2010 but he did not carry out the orders till 20.4.2010.
While working as CMI/RE he was not found at his S 6.
Saaiey HO/RE on 10.5.2010 and 11.5.2020, neither had he reported about his absence about his absence but he claimed his presence in the muster roll. while working as CMI/RE on 21.7.2010 he deliberately communicated wrong information about his presence at Ateli though he did not reach Ateli station which was confirmed by on duty ASM Sh. Anuj Kumar Das who was on duty in 10.00 22.00 Hrs shift. g, He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.7.2010 vide SF1 no.EC/308/2010/29(B) dated 22.7.2010 with instruction tO remain at his HQ i.e. RE and deposit his duty card pass and CUG SIM with ARO/RE and neither he was traceable up to 11.8.2010.
He unauthorized left the HQ on 7.8.2010 and app eared in the written examination for selection to the post of ACM at HQ's office of NWR/JP. 3, on the applicant's denial of these charges, an inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer found charges No.1, 2, 3, 7 ® and 9 proved, while the charges No. 4, 5 and 6 not proved. inary Authority punished the applicant with a The piscip! punishment of removal of service, by its order dated 41.12.2014 (annexure A/8). The applicant's appeal against this order was decided by order dated 29.01.2015 (at (OA No.764/2016 (4) Annexure A/1). The Appellate Authority reduced the punishment from removal of service to the reduction in pay two stages below from pay of Rs.28,780/- to 23,300/- in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- for two years without cumulative effect. The applicant filed a revision petition against it which was decided by order dated 24.12.2015 [Annexure A/1(a)] keeping the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority intact.
4, The applicant has challenged these punishment orders, mainly, on the following grounds. The applicant was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself as he was not provided copies of the documents sought by him. The charges against the applicant were not proved through reliable evidence and matter not even charged has been taken into consideration. There was inordinate delay in the completion of inquiry. The punishment imposed by the Authority was disproportionate and it showed ice in the mind of the Disciplinary Authority. The order ¢ the Appellate authority is not a speaking order as it does 0 t discuss any of the points raised by the applicant in his no 2 Revisional Authority's order, too, shows similar plication of mind. Besides all these, the applicant hee also questioned the competence of the Disciplinary Authority e a punishment of removal of service since the .
(OA No.764/2016 (5) applicant claims he was appointed by the General Manager and therefore cannot be removed by any authority lesser in rank than that.
5. The respondents have denied the charges. It is stated that the applicant was found guilty of the charge of misconduct levelled against him. He was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, was supplied copies of all the relevant documents, and did not raise any such issue, about not getting the copies of the relevant documents, during the course of inquiry. The time taken in completing the inquiry was necessary [0 provide full opportunity to the applicant to defend himself and to fulfill all the procedural requirements. The Appellate Authority has reduced the punishment from panies of removal from service, to a relatively ment, which itself shows application of mind icates consideration of points made by the applicant _ The applicant has tried to distort facts and has not been able to produce anything to disprove the charges of misconduct that were found to be proved through witnesses and records produced before the Inquiry Officer. rhe reply also states that the applicant was appointed by sco (G) and ne ot the General Manager, and thus the action taken again nst the applicant does not suffer from lack of competenc® | 1 (OA No.764/2016 (6)
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his claims and denying the averments in the reply that are contrary to his claims.
7. The matter was finally heard on 25.03.2022. The learned counsels for the applicant and the respondents reiterated the arguments mentioned in their respective pleadings. The learned counsel for the applicant also produced @ copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar VS. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer and Others, (1979) AIR SC 1912, to support his claim about the incompetence of the Disciplinary authority.
g, We have gone through the pleadings. The applicant has prayed for quashing Annexure A/i and Annexure A/1(a) (orders of the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing authority, respectively) without realising that if we grant his prayer without setting aside the order of punishment of the pisciplinary authority (Annexure A/8), it would mean reviving the order of removal from service. This would be 4 remedy worse than the disease. We, however, ignore this patent error in the relief sought, and go by the spirit of the | (OA No.764/2016 (7) applicant's intentions behind filing this OA, which is to have the whole disciplinary action taken against him quashed
9. The scope of judicial intervention in matters of quasi- judicial nature, like the disciplinary action under the present case, is limited. Broadly speaking, if the actions are taken by authorities competent to take those actions; with no mala- fides oF extraneous factors affecting those decisions; after ing the procedure prescribed under the law for taking giving sufficient opportunity to the affected follow such action, n to defend oneself, the Courts or Tribunals should interfering in the process by substituting their with the judgments of the competent authorities. blished law, the first thing that we have to petence of the Disciplinary Authority to impose the major punishment of removal from service, is correct. There jsputing the constitutional protection that every civil is no d servant has about not being liable for removal by any ubordinate to the authority which appointed him or her to the service. The applicant has claimed in this OA that he was appointed by the General Manager. He has annexed, at annexure-4, a copy of the Memorandum signed (E) allotting the applicant, along with other Commerc! | \ (OA No.764/2016 (8) training, to ccG Division. The respondents have claimed that the applicant was appointed by DCO(G). The learned counsel for the respondents also produced Schedule-II of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, to he Junior Administrative Grade Officers and show that ¢t Senior scale officers holding independent Charge or In- charge of a Department in the Division are empowered to major disciplinary action against all classes of non- (to which the applicant belongs). The appeal take 'onal Divisional Railway Manager (in he Departments Attached to them) and the Managers. Since the respondents have y denies that the applicant was appointed by the was for the applicant to prove that his nt was actually by the General Manager, an appoints"
¢ than the one who passed the order what the applicant has produced is 4 of allotting and posting him to a division. We
4) be persuaded to believe that this is, in fact, an ont order if we did not notice a paragraph in this which further states, that "the candidate g-ccG may be directed to contact SPO (R&T) posted in H ccG for completing pre-appointment formalities."
.< added: refer page 87 of the Paper Book). This eaves NO doubt in our mind that it is not an (OA No.764/2016 (9) appointment order as there were still some _ pre appointment formalities to be completed before th e appointment, for a candidate like the applicant who was posted with the ccG. Since the applicant has failed to give any proof to show that he was appointed by General even an authority equivalent to General Manager (or Manager), We do not agree with his contention that the disciplinary acti im suffers from lack of competence:
10. We have also gone through the allegations about lack of full opportunity granted to the applicant, the apparent spald" nature of the orders of the Appellate Authority and Authority, and other procedural the revisional egalities/irregularites mentioned by the applicant. We gone through the charge memo, the reply of the the inquiry report and other connected records. y reason to suspect any bias, mala fides not see any denial of natural justice. The en apparently given ample opportunity elf. THe Inquiry Officer did not find 3 out of the yed against the applicant for want of evidence. matters, the Inquiry Officer has come to the from the available evidence, that those charges conclusion have been proved. We do not see that those conclusions are (OA No.764/2016 (10) based on any extraneous factor. We do feel that, ideally t speaking, the orders of the Appellate Authority could have been more elaborate, but we agree with the contention of the respondents that these orders cannot be said to be without application of mind. the Appellate Authority has m that of removal to 4 much f reduction in pay two stages below jesser punishment (oO of Rs.28,780/ yand that too, without future effect.
- to 23,300/- in Grade Pay of a5.4200/- for two years g the applicant's plea that the this does amount to acceptin original punishment was disproportionate to the quantum of proved misconduct. T he Reviewing Authority has pen" Authority and, therefore, did not a more detailed order. It would if both these authorities had taken pains to borate to ensure that the justice it also appeared to have been done.
was no Howevely e do not think that these orders deserve to be quashed only of this ground. Though not very detailed, do show application of mind, and are orders of ority which we do not think we need to for reasons of not being detailed enough. (OA No.764/2016 (11) reasons, WE do not intend to interfere with se or all the .
i d against. The OA is, therefore, not allowed. aye No costs A
-_ 7 7 en eee cog 7 (Dinesh Sharma) (Hina P. shat Member (A) member /kdr/