Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Romi Mago vs M/O Railways on 7 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 2454/2021
Reserved on: 02.12.2025
Pronounced on: 07.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Romi Mago, Aged about 54 years,
R/o D-602 Neelanchal Apartments,
Sector 4, Plot No.3, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078
Working as Chief OS/C/Land
Northern Railway,
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. D.S. Mahendru)
VERSUS
Northern Railway, Through:-
1. General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110003
2. Chief Administrative Officer (Const.),
Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006
3. The Chief Engineer (Const./Planning)
Northern Railway,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. G.S. Virk)
2026.01.08
LALIT
15:57:00
GOSAIN
+05'30'
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The applicant, while working as Chief Office Superintendent/Construction/Land, Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, was served with a charge sheet (SE-5) dated 24.05.2018 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging serious misconduct in relation to tender No. 74- W/4/1/399/WA/MB pertaining to the work of construction of limited height subways in Moradabad Division. The gravamen of the charge was that the applicant, though not required to deal with the financial bid (Packet-II), allegedly tampered with the quoted rates in connivance with other officials and the contractor, thereby causing alleged financial loss to the Railways. The applicant duly submitted a detailed written defence on 06.08.2018, categorically denying the allegations and praying for dropping of the charge sheet. However, the said request was rejected and a regular departmental inquiry was conducted.
2. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.08.2019, wherein the charge was held to be only partially proved, thereby clearly demolishing the very foundation of the grave and serious allegations levelled against the applicant. Notwithstanding the finding of partial proof, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 30.12.2019, imposed the punishment of reduction by two stages in the time scale for a period of four months without cumulative effect of postponing future increments of pay and allowances with immediate effect. The applicant accepted the said order, underwent the penalty in its entirety, and the penalty period 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 3 came to an end on 30.04.2020. The punishment thus stood fully worked out and exhausted.
3. It is pertinent to submit that after conclusion of the major penalty proceedings, the office of the General Manager, Northern Railway, vide communication dated 09.07.2020, categorically confirmed that the major penalty proceedings against the applicant stood treated as closed by Railway Board Vigilance. It was further confirmed that no D&AR or Vigilance case was pending against the applicant. This position was once again reaffirmed by the respondents themselves vide letter dated 28.08.2020, issued in connection with promotion to the post of APO (70%).
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the admitted position that no D&AR or Vigilance case was pending against him, the applicant submitted a representation dated 06.08.2020 requesting the respondents to open the sealed cover relating to his result in LDCE-2017-2019 for promotion to the post of APO (70%) and to grant him promotion accordingly. However, despite there being no legal impediment whatsoever, the respondents failed and neglected to act upon the said request. Though the penalty period had already ended on 30.04.2020, the applicant, in order to clear his service record of the stigma attached to the punishment, preferred a statutory appeal on 08.02.2021 before the Appellate Authority, along with a prayer for condonation of delay due to the pandemic. The said appeal was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed a revision petition dated 12.04.2021 before the Revisionary Authority. Instead of granting 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 4 relief, the Revisionary Authority, vide order dated 28.07.2021, proposed enhancement of penalty to reduction to a lower grade with cumulative effect. The applicant was granted 15 days' time to submit his representation. The applicant received the said order on 06.08.2021 and submitted his representation on 19.08.2021, inter alia, pointing out that the proposed order was unsigned and therefore not sustainable in law as per Railway Board instructions, while reserving his right to respond on merits upon receipt of a valid order. Subsequently, the respondents themselves withdrew the proposed enhancement order dated 28.07.2021 vide order dated 06.10.2021. It is significant that this withdrawal took place after expiry of six months from the date of the appellate authority's order dated 31.03.2021, rendering the entire exercise of proposed enhancement wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
5. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, the applicant was also served with a Minor Penalty Charge Sheet (SF-11) dated 10.11.2020, alleging lapses relating to non-preservation of a variation file and non-production of handing-over notes pertaining to an agreement case of the year 2016-17. The applicant submitted his reply dated 11.11.2020, requesting dropping of the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor penalty of reduction of two sets of passes for the year 2020-2021 vide order dated 01.12.2020, which penalty the applicant has already undergone. The conclusion of the minor penalty proceedings was duly communicated by the Disciplinary Authority to the competent authorities vide letter dated 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 5 04.12.2020 in connection with the applicant's promotion. The applicant preferred an appeal against the minor penalty, which was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2021. Thereafter, the applicant filed a revision petition dated 12.05.2021, which has not been decided till date. In terms of Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, no order can now be passed on the said revision after expiry of six months. Thus, even the minor penalty proceedings stand conclusively closed. It is therefore an admitted and incontrovertible position that the applicant has already undergone both the major and minor penalties, that no D&AR or Vigilance case is pending against him, and that all disciplinary proceedings against him stand finally concluded. Despite this, the respondents have deliberately and arbitrarily failed to open the sealed cover containing the applicant's result of LDCE-2017-2019 for promotion to the post of APO (70%) and have unlawfully denied him promotion. The continued withholding of the applicant's promotion, in the absence of any pending disciplinary or vigilance proceedings, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and violative of the settled principles governing sealed cover procedure. The respondents' action clearly reflects an intent to victimize the applicant and deprive him of his legitimate and accrued service benefits.
6. In these circumstances, the applicant submitted that the respondents are bound in law to open the sealed cover, declare the result of the applicant in LDCE-2017-2019, and grant him promotion to the post of APO (70%) with all consequential benefits, including seniority and arrears, as may be admissible under the rules.
2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 6
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the action taken in the present case is strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. Therefore, the action is fair, legal, and justified.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was not exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings and was awarded punishment. Consequently, after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the competent authority found the applicant not suitable/qualified for selection to the Group 'B' post of APO under the 70% quota for the selection cycle from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2019. It was further submitted that the applicant had filed an appeal along with a request for condonation of delay. The Reviewing Authority had issued a notice proposing enhancement of punishment; however, the same was withheld vide order dated 06.10.2021 on technical grounds.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that vide letter dated 04.12.2020, the GM (P), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, was informed that no D&AR case was pending against the applicant on that date. However, the appeal was ultimately rejected as it was found to be without merit.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that the result/recommendation of the Departmental Test was decided, and the applicant was found not suitable/qualified for selection to the Group 'B' post of APO under the 70% quota for the relevant cycle. The result was not opened because the applicant had not been 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 7 exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings and had been awarded punishment.
11. It was lastly submitted that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the respondents to victimize the applicant, as alleged.
12. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to open the sealed cover relating to his result in LDCE-2017-2019 for promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) under the 70% quota and to grant him promotion with all consequential benefits. The applicant contends that all disciplinary proceedings against him have concluded, that no D&AR or Vigilance case is pending, and therefore there is no legal justification for withholding his promotion.
13. The facts of the case are largely undisputed. While working as Chief Office Superintendent, the applicant was served with a major penalty charge sheet dated 24.05.2018 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.08.2019, wherein the charge was held to be partially proved. Based on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale for a period of four months without cumulative effect vide order dated 30.12.2019. The applicant accepted the punishment and underwent it fully, and the penalty period ended on 30.04.2020.
14. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was subsequently issued a minor penalty charge sheet dated 10.11.2020, and a minor penalty of reduction of two sets of passes for the year 2020-2021 was 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 8 imposed vide order dated 01.12.2020. The applicant has already undergone the said minor penalty as well. In both disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was not exonerated, and the findings of guilt and penalties imposed have attained finality. The applicant has heavily relied upon certain communications issued by the respondents stating that no D&AR or Vigilance case was pending against him on specific dates. However, these communications only indicate the pendency position and do not amount to a declaration that the applicant was exonerated or found suitable for promotion. The absence of a pending disciplinary or vigilance case does not automatically create a right to promotion, particularly when the employee has been found guilty in disciplinary proceedings and awarded punishment.
15. We find that the promotion to the post of APO under the 70% quota is a selection post falling under Group 'B' and is not a matter of seniority alone. Passing the written examination does not by itself confer an automatic right to promotion. The appointing authority is required to assess the overall suitability of the candidate, including service record, integrity, and disciplinary history. In the present case, the applicant's disciplinary record includes both a major and a minor penalty during the relevant selection period. The sealed cover procedure is applicable only in cases where disciplinary or vigilance proceedings are pending or where the employee is completely exonerated after conclusion of such proceedings. In the present case, the applicant was not exonerated. The charge was held to be partially proved, and punishment was imposed. Therefore, the applicant 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 9 cannot claim the benefit of opening of the sealed cover as a matter of right.
16. The contention of the applicant that the foundation of the allegations stood demolished cannot be accepted. A finding of partial proof is still a finding of misconduct, and the imposition of penalty clearly establishes that the applicant was found blameworthy. Completion of punishment does not wipe out the misconduct, nor does it entitle the employee to promotion to a higher selection post. The applicant has also challenged the proposed enhancement of penalty by the Revisional Authority. It is admitted that the proposed enhancement was withdrawn on technical grounds. However, withdrawal of the proposal does not nullify the original punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which continues to remain valid and operative.
17. The respondents have stated that after consideration of the departmental test and overall record, the applicant was found not suitable or qualified for promotion to the post of APO under the 70% quota for the relevant selection cycle. We find no arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fides in the said decision. The assessment of suitability lies within the domain of the competent authority, and unless such assessment is shown to be perverse or actuated by malice, judicial interference is not warranted.
18. The allegation of victimization made by the applicant is vague and unsupported by any material on record. On the contrary, the record shows that the applicant was afforded full opportunity during 2026.01.08 LALIT 15:57:00 GOSAIN +05'30' 10 disciplinary proceedings, his appeals were duly considered, and even the proposed enhancement of punishment was withdrawn.
19. In view of the above discussion, we hold that mere conclusion of disciplinary proceedings does not entitle the applicant to promotion, particularly when he was not exonerated. The respondents were justified in not opening the sealed cover and in assessing the applicant as not suitable for promotion to the Group 'B' post of APO. The action taken by the respondents is in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. Accordingly, the Original Application is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/
2026.01.08
LALIT
15:57:00
GOSAIN
+05'30'