Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Devendra Pal Singh vs Union Of India Through on 21 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1720/2010
New Delhi this the 21st day of April, 2011.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Devendra Pal Singh,
S/o sh. K.R. Singh presently
functioning as Chief Law
Assistant Group B Non Gazetted
in the Office CAO (Const)
Northern Railway Kashmere
Gate, Delhi, Ministry of Railways,
R/o 2190, Chiranjiv Vihar Ghaziabad (UP). . Applicant
(through Shri V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Chief General Manager,
Norther Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Chief Commercial Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Claims Officer,
Northern Railway,
NDRC Building,
New Delhi.
4. Dy. Chief Commercial Manager
(Claims) Northern Railway,
HQrs Office Claims Branch,
NDRC Building, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Shailendra Tiwary, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This O.A. is directed against the order dated 28.04.2010 of respondent No.4 imposing the penalty of withholding the increment of the applicant for six months.
2. While working as Chief Law Assistant (CLA) a charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 31.03.2006 on the allegations that he had given undesirable and irrelevant comments on the files relating to implementation of the decrees/orders of the Court and further that he endorsed the files directly to higher officers without routing them through the prosecution officer to whom he was attached. He denied the charges and gave representation to make available the record relevant to charge No.3 and for transferring the matter to Chief Accounts Officer/C/P&P/Construction Organization Kashmere Gate, Delhi. However, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) held that he had not routed the files through the PO and that he was in the habit of creating panic and directly marking the files to higher authorities. He imposed the penalty of withholding of increment for two years. He filed an appeal against this order on 24.05.2007 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority (AA) in its order dated 17/18.07.2007. He filed revision petition against this order and finally the revising authority moderated the penalty from two years to six months. The applicant filed OA-2195/2008 which was remitted on 10.08.2009 to the respondents to consider it in the context of the applicability of O.M. dated 15.03.2005. The respondents considered the direction of this Tribunal and passed an order on 23.11.2009 and reiterated its finding that the applicant was in the habit of passing undesirable and irrelevant remarks on the files and did not observe the prescribed procedures, and on those grounds upheld the penalty. A Contempt Petition No. 657/2009 was filed against this order in which the Tribunal on 03.03.2010 held that the order dated 23.11.2009 was not in true letter and spirit of the direction of the Tribunal as there had not been any discussion about the applicability of the O.M. dated 15.03.2005. They were directed to pass fresh order. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to this direction.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant canvassed the following arguments:-
(i) The applicant was working under the control of the Prosecuting Officer (PO) who had issued instructions on 15.03.2005 advising him to send all the files relating to cases before RCT Bench directly to OS (Court & Accident)/ACM(Court & Accident), SCM (Court) and Chief Claim Office. He has filed a copy of this letter at page 29 which reads as under:-
Sub:- Functioning of office of PO/RCT/GZB Consequent upon recommendation of the RCT Review Committee, it was decided by the Railway Board, in their letter No. 2002/TC-III/43/RCT-Review/PO/06.19.7 dated 30-5/3-06-03, that office of PO/RCT will function as a self-contained unit.
In the absence of sufficient supporting staff posted at RCT/GZB, it is not possible for this office (PO/RCT/GZB) to work independently, i.e. as a self-contained unit.
Therefore, in the interest of Railway administration, to run this office sufficiently and smoothly, CLA/RCT/GZB is advised to send all the files pertaining to the cases pending before RCT Bench to OS (Court & Accident), ACM (Court & Accident), SCM (Court) and Chief Claims Office, NDCR Building for further processing. In view of such specific direction, it is contended that there was no irregularity in endorsing the files directly. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the PO had no authority to issue such an instruction. Therefore, this O.M. was cancelled by the CCO in his letter dated 18.07.2007 as it was in conflict with the instructions of the Railway Board communicated in their letter dated 30.5/3.6.2003. Even if this contention is accepted the cancellation took place in the month of July 2007 whereas the incident narrated in the charge sheet relate to a period prior to it. When there is express order of the superior authority asking the applicant to put up the matters directly to appropriate respondent authorities, no fault could possibly be found for the action of the applicant in complying with such direction of his immediate superior authority. This was the view which was prima-facie taken by this Tribunal when it directed the respondents to examine the matter in the light of the instructions conveyed to the applicant in the O.M. dated 25.03.2005.
(ii) The second argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant merely conveyed the status of the cases and had given remarks that appropriate steps should be taken to obtain stay order to prevent execution action against the railways.
4. On going through the allegations, we find that the applicant had been harping on the apprehension of attachment of railway property even though the Courts order had not mentioned anything specifically in that regard. Therefore, that was a legitimate ground for the respondent authorities to come to the conclusion that the applicant was trying to create unnecessary panic and was giving undesirable remarks without clearly stating the orders of the Courts. In any case, the revising authority has considerably moderated the penalty by reducing the impact of withholding of increment from two years to six months.
5. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the revising authority which would call any interference. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vv/