Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
A Ravi Shekhar vs M/O Railways on 23 January, 2026
Reserved
(On 26.11.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR.
Dated : This the _23rd day of _January__ 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms Mallika Arya, Member (A)
Original Application No. 103 of 2017
A. Ravi Shekhar SSE(C&W)/Drug Age 42 years, R/o Quarter No.
101/4 Railway Colony, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
.......Applicant
By Adv: Shri Shoeb H Khan
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, South Eastern
Central Railways, Bilaspur - 495004.
2. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, (C&W) SEC
Railway, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001.
3. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, (O&F) SEC
Railway, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001.
4. The Senior Divisional Medical Officer, SEC Railway, Bhilai,
Chhattisgarh - 492001.
PIYU PIYU
5. B. Sinku Sen, Divisional Mechanical Engineer, SEC
SH SH
CHANCHAN
Railways, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495004.
DRA DRA
6. Chief Workshop Manager, South Central Railways,
Rayanapadu Wagon Shop Guntupalli, Vijaywada, Andra
Pradesh - 521241.
........Respondents
By Adv: Shri P.K. Chourasia
1
ORDER
By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM The applicant by way of instant original application has prayed to quash the order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure A/12), order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure A/11) and order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure A-14).
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Senior Section Engineer (C&W) Durg and was in-charge of Mechanized Laundry Section. He was found in an intoxicated condition (exact time) when the General Manager/SECR and other Principal Heads of the Department (PHODs) came for Annual inspection at the Mechanical Section of Durg, Coaching Depot and Raipur Division. The applicant gave a presentation before higher officials on 17.01.2014 and was immensely appreciated by the officials. The evidence corroborating the same has been observed by the Enquiry Officer in his findings. The PIYU PIYU SH SH CHANCHAN applicant immediately thereafter was called at the station and a DRA DRA breath analyzer test was conducted. Technically the blood report showed presence of a minimal level of alcohol. The doctor in his remarks concluded that the applicant's memory level and other activities were normal. The applicant was ill and was taking 2 medicines which had alcoholic content. A copy of prescription of the doctor dated 13.01.2014 is enclosed as (Annexure A/4). Subsequently, thereafter a major penalty charge sheet dated (SF-
5) No. M/D&A/SE-5/LS/SSE/C&W/Durg/05/9421 04.02.2014 was served to the applicant for contravention of the provision of Rule 3.1(ii),3.1(iii) and 22(1)&(2), of the Railway Services(Conduct) Rules, 1966. The applicant submitted his reply dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure A/5) denying the charges levelled against him. The applicant also submitted a representation dated 24.05.2014 (Annexure A/6).
3. The Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report dated 28.05.2014 exonerated the applicant of all the charges except charge under Rule 3.1 (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct), Rules 1966 i.e. „conduct unbecoming of a Government servant‟. The Disciplinary Authority partially disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure A/2). He PIYU PIYU arrived at a conclusion that all the charges levelled against the SH SH CHANCHAN DRA DRA applicant were proved on the basis of evidence on record and passed an adverse order of punishment without applying his mind. The Disciplinary Authority had made up his mind for imposing the punishment on the applicant in contradiction of the 3 findings of the Enquiry Officer without explaining any grounds what so ever. The applicant was forced to approach the Tribunal/ Hon'ble High Court wherein it was directed to consider the submissions of the applicant and pass a reasoned order. The applicant submitted his final defence statement. Even then the Disciplinary Authority who was adamant in punishing the applicant, without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective passed an order with malafide intentions imposing the penalty of removal from service and forfeiture of pension vide order dated 8.10.2014. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the applicant preferred an appeal dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure A/10) which was decided on 08.01.2015 (Annexure A/11) in which the Appellate Authority modified the order of removal from service and imposed the punishment of reduction to lower stage in the time scale by 4 stages below (Rs. 15060 + 4600/- GP) for a period of four years with cumulative effect. He further directed that the period of removal from service till PIYU PIYU SH SH reinstatement in service to be treated as „dies-non‟. CHANCHAN DRA DRA
4. The Appellate Authority did not analyze the aspect that the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority took a compassionate 4 mind and observed that the good track record of the applicant and smooth working of the unit under his charge had led him to take a humanitarian ground in his favour. Accordingly, he modified the punishment order. A revision against the said order was preferred vide memorandum dated 12.02.2015. Vide order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure A/12) the Revisionary Authority instead of setting aside the malafide order of Disciplinary Authority and of Appellate Authority, passed an order concluding that the charge of intoxicated condition gets proved against the applicant without mentioning the grounds/evidence on the basis of which he arrived at this conclusion. He further modified the punishment order to reduction in lower stage in the time scale of pay by 4 stages below i.e. (RS. 15060 4600-G.P.) for a period of 1 year with cumulative effect. However, no order was passed regarding treating the period of absence as „dies-non‟. The biasness of the Disciplinary Authority can be observed from the fact that the applicant was served two charge sheets on the same date i.e. PIYU PIYU SH SH 19.09.2014 (Annexure A/13). One of which was dropped after a CHANCHAN DRA DRA period of two years. Both the charge sheets were issued by the same authority i.e. Shri B. Sinku.
5
5. The respondents have filed their reply wherein they have submitted that a punishment of major penalty was imposed on the applicant as he was found in a drunken condition on duty. On 17.04.2014 during the annual Inspection by the General Manager accompanied by all PHOD, in Mechanised Laundry Plant at Durg the applicant was found performing duty under the influence of heavy potency intoxicating substance. Thereafter he was immediately directed for a breath analyzer test and instantly his blood sample were collected by the Railway Doctor. It was sent to the Deputy Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory State of Maharstra Dhantoli Nagpur. The report of Breath Analyzer test (Annexure R/1) confirmed that there was Alcohol content in blood of the Applicant. Further the report dated 20.01.2014 of Deputy Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory State of Maharastra Dhantoli Nagpur (Annexure R/2) indicated that present of heavy potency of alcohol contents in the blood of the Applicant. It proves that he consumed Alcohol on the day of the PIYU PIYU SH SH Inspection of General Manager S.E.C. Railway Bilaspur. CHANCHAN DRA DRA
6. The post of Senior Section Engineer in (C&W) department comes under the Supervisory Category. The Senior Section Engineer is required to discharge his duty as immediate in charge 6 of at least 20 to 30 staffs in Mechanical Department. These staff have to work under the supervision/instruction of Senior Section Engineer for maintenance of wagons, repairing and other Misc works. Being a Supervisory Officer the conduct (under influence of intoxication) of the applicant during the inspection has sent a wrong message amongst the staff working in Mechanized Laundry Plant Durg Station as well as in Coaching Depot Durg. For the above misconduct the applicant was served with a major penalty charge sheet under memorandum No. M/D&&A/SF- 5/LS/ARS/SSE/C&W/Durg/05/941 dated 04.02.2014. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was in a drunken condition during the annual inspection 17.01.2014 at Durg which has already been proved through breath analyzer test and also from the blood test conducted by the Deputy Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory State of Maharstra Dhantoli Nagpur. The report of the above two tests and the statement of the applicant made on 17.01.2014 (Annexure R/3) admitting that he had consumed PIYU PIYU SH SH alcohol on the day of annual inspection makes it crystal clear that CHANCHAN DRA DRA he had committed the alleged misconduct.
7. Since the explanation of the applicant was not found satisfactory so as to consider dropping of the charges levelled in 7 the charge sheet, Shri A. Ravinderan Sr.DME(O&F) SEC Rly/Raipur was nominated as Enquiry Officer. Thereafter a detailed enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and during enquiry proceedings the applicant was assisted by an ARE (defence Counsel) as per his choice. Finally in five sittings the enquiry was concluded with the following findings that, "with reference to the Article of charges under rule 3.1 (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rule. Do nothing which is unbecoming of railway servant is "Proved". The Article of charges under rule 22 (1) and (2) were not proved. A copy of enquiry report is annexed as R/4. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 28.05.2014 (Annexure R/5) submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of enquiry report was also furnished to the applicant giving him an opportunity of making a representation.
8. After going through the enquiry report the Disciplinary PIYU PIYU Authority gave a discordant note vide letter dated 03/04.07.2014 SH SH CHANCHAN DRA DRA (Annexure R/6) addressed to the applicant disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer with respect to not proving the charges framed under rule 22(1) & (2) of Service Conduct Rule 1966 8 (Annexure R/6). In response to the same the applicant submitted a detailed defence note dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure R/7).
9. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through final defence statement observed that the applicant had himself admitted that on the day of inspection he was under influence of intoxication which gets corroborated by the reports of Deputy Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory State of Maharastra Dhantoli Nagpur and from the report of the breath analyzer test. He therefore opined that remaining under influence of intoxication while on duty is a severe misconduct. It has conveyed a wrong signal to the entire organization (Mechanized Laundry Plant/Coaching Depot). This would embolden other employees, co-workers who may come under drunken state during duty hours. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, records, the Disciplinary Authority vide order PIYU PIYU dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure A/14) imposed a punishment of SH SH CHANCHAN DRA DRA "Removal from Service" with immediate effect without any pensionary benefit to the applicant. According to the settled law the Courts cannot interfere with a fact finding authority and cannot 9 substitute it‟s view with that of the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.
10. The Applicant preferred an appeal against the above punishment order to the Appellate Authority. While considering the records including the findings of enquiry officer and also keeping in view of the good track record of the applicant's past service, the Appellate Authority issued an order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure A/11) modifying the punishment of removal from service to reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by four stages below i.e. (15060+4600 GP) for a period of 04 years with cumulative effect.
11. Against the punishment order dated 08.01.2015 imposed by Appellate Authority a statutory appeal was made by the applicant before the Revisionary Authority. The Revisionary authority with full application of mind further took a lenient view and the issued the order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure A/12) PIYU PIYU SH SH reducing the period of punishment from 4 years to 1 year i.e. CHANCHAN DRA DRA reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay by four stages below i.e. (Rs.15060+4600 GP) for a period of one year with cumulative effect.
10
12. The respondents have relied on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case to State of UP and others vs. Nand Kishore Shukla and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 1561. In the said judgment the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"The only question is whether the Disciplinary Authority would have passed such order. It is settled law even one of charges, if held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority, the court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order."
13. The applicant has filed his rejoinder wherein he reiterated the same facts as stated in the OA.
14. We have heard the counsels for the parties, perused the records carefully and the case laws relied by them.
15. We take note of the statement of the applicant dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure R/3) wherein he has himself admitted that he consumed a little bit of alcohol to get relaxed since he was PIYU PIYU mentally and physically tired. He was also taking some SH SH CHANCHAN DRA DRA medicines (cough syrup) as prescribed by the doctor which could contain some alcoholic ingredient. Apart from this fact the blood test report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur indicates presence of alcohol in the blood of the 11 applicant. The respondents have also submitted the report of the blood analyzer test, which also indicates the presence of alcohol in the blood of the applicant. Therefore, the fact that the applicant was under the influence of liquor while on duty, cannot be contested. Accordingly, the respondents took disciplinary action against the applicant. Although the Inquiry Officer proved the charge under Rule 3.1 (iii) of the Railway Servant Conduct Rule 1966 and held that charge under Rule 22 (1) and (2) does not get proved, the Disciplinary Authority gave a disagreement note justifying his findings vide his note dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure R/6). The Disciplinary Authority in the said note has observed as follows:-
"It is the general interpretation of E.O. on this rule. It is interpreted that a Railway servant should not come on duty in intoxicated condition during the course of duty. It the enquiry it is proved beyond doubt and also with available documentary evidence that you were in intoxicated condition during duty hours. Hence, it is obvious that you being the in-charge of the unit (Mechanized Laundry section) were present in duty in intoxicated condition and you have set a bad example for staff working under you. Se I found the charges as proved and action as deemed fit will be taken accordingly."
PIYU PIYU SH SH CHANCHAN 16. After considering the final defence statement of the DRA DRA applicant dated 30.07.2017 the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment vide order dated 10.10.2014 of removal from service with immediate effect. The said punishment was subsequently 12 modified by the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority. The Appellate Authority in his order, while modifying the punishment of removal from service, opined that keeping in view the good track record of the applicant and for working sincerely in his unit and the assurance given by him in person, a humanitarian view was being taken. Accordingly, the punishment of removal from service was modified into reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. Thereafter, the Revisionary Authority further modified the punishment order vide order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure A-12) and reduced the punishment imposed for a period of four years to one year with cumulative effect.
17. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Chennai High Court in the case of the Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force and Ors. vs. S. Sivagnanam reported in (1996)IILLJ597MAD. They have relied on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PIYU PIYU SH SH S.P. Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in CHANCHAN DRA DRA (2013)7 SCC 251. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be applied as the facts of this case are entirely different. Since the applicant has himself accepted that he had consumed liquor before coming to duty as 13 he was mentally depressed. The blood sample reports have further corroborated the fact that he was under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty of charge under Rule 3.1 (iii) of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
18. We find that the Inquiry Officer has held that charge under Rule 22 (1) and (2) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 as not proved against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer has further opined that being under the influence of liquor has not affected the performance of the applicant.
19. We observe that the although the disagreement note has been enclosed by the respondents, the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of „removal from service‟, has neither been enclosed by the applicant nor by the respondents. We observe that there has been no violation of principles of PIYU PIYU SH SH natural justice in conducting the departmental inquiry. Further the CHANCHAN DRA DRA respondents have followed the due procedure for imposition of penalty. The punishment imposed on the applicant for the charges levelled against him is not disproportionate. We also observe that adequate opportunity was given to the applicant to 14 represent his case at every stage during the course of the departmental proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority has very cogently justified his arguments regarding difference of opinion from the Enquiry Officer‟s finding in his discordant note dated 04.06.2014. Accordingly he has imposed the major punishment of removal from service on the applicant which has been subsequently modified by the Appellate and the Revisionary Authority.
20. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited and another Vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan, (2011) 13 SCC 541: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 67 wherein Hon‟ble Apex Court has considered various case laws on the subject, and has given the following findings:
"(19) In Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1989) 10 ATC 30, this Court while dealing with PIYU PIYU the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with the SH SH CHANCHAN punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority observed as DRA DRA under:
"27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty 15 on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority."
21. In a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha ; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723,Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279=1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and PIYU PIYU SH SH another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by CHANCHAN DRA DRA Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by 16 some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.
22. Recently, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus P. Gunasekaran 2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follows:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re- appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
PIYU PIYU a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; SH SH CHANCHAN DRA DRA b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
17
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
Xx xx xx PIYU PIYU
SH SH 19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry CHANCHAN DRA DRA report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.18
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
23. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 again has observed that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited. The Courts are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence. In this regard, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
PIYU PIYU "The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the SH SH CHANCHAN charges against the appellant to have been proved. After DRA DRA consultation with the UPSC, the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.10.1986.The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, upheld all the charges as having been proved but converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The delinquent filed an appeal challenging the finding on merits, and the Union filed an appeal canvassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by it. Allowing the 19 appeal of the Union of India and dismissing that of the delinquent."
24. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has also observed with regard to scope of judicial review as well as with regard to the quantum of punishment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Md. Ayub Naaz reported in 2006 (1) SCC 589 as under:-
"10. This Court in Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment / proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment was awarded in the instant case, after considering all the relevant materials and, therefore, in our view, the interference by the High Court on reduction of punishment of removal is not called for."
25. Accordingly we are of the considered view that the punishment imposed on the Applicant by the Disciplinary Authority which has subsequently been modified by the Appellate and Revisionary Authority does not merit any interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no merit in the OA and the same is PIYU PIYU SH SH CHANCHAN dismissed. No costs.
DRA DRA
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/Piyush/
20