Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Hemant Kumar vs North Western Railway on 29 November, 2025
1
OA No. 077/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No.077/2024
Order reserved on: 27.10.2025
Date of order: 29.11.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Hemant Kumar son of Shri. P.C. Jatav, Age 43 years resident of
House No.392A/27, Isai Mohalla, Hazari Bagh, Ajmer-305 001,
presently posted as Senior Goods Train Manager (Group-C),
Division Ajmer, Ajmer
[Mobile No:- 9799788328]
[E-Mail:- [email protected]]
Subject: pay scale (Reduction)
-Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sunil Samadaria)
Versus
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Western
Railways, Near Gold Soukh, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. 302012
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railways,
Ajmer. 305001
3. Principal Chief Operation Manager (PCOM), North Western
Railways, Jaipur 302017
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Arun Sharma)
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=
DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER
=
4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d
SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=
e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone=
7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311
MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@
GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30'
2
OA No. 077/2024
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present Original Application had been filed by the Applicant against the order dated 12.05.2023 of the Additional Divisional Railway Manager (Operation) [A.D.R.M.(Op.)], Ajmer , i.e. the Respondent No.2, as the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.) - whereby major penalty of "reduction in pay scale by two stages for three years with future/cumulative effect" was imposed ; and also against the order dated 21.09.2023 of the Principal Chief Operation Manager (P.C.O.M.), N.W.R. Headquarters, Jaipur, i.e. the Respondent No.3,as the Appellate Authority (A.A.) - whereby the penalty imposed by the D.A. upon the Applicant was retained.
2. Based on the pleading of the parties, the relevant matrix of facts in the present case had emerged as follows, briefly. The Applicant had been appointedGoods Guard, laterdesignated as Train Manager (Goods), with the N.W.R. in 2018, as an ex- serviceman recruited by the Railway Recruitment Board (R.R.B.), Ajmer. In 2020, he was promoted as Senior Train Manager (Goods). An F.I.R. No.120/2021 dated 10.04.2021 came to be filed against the Applicant at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota under Section- (341, 323 and 34) of the I.P.C. - alleging wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt against his wife and his parents-in-law - and the Applicant was detained under Section-(151 and 107) of the Cr.P.C. at the said police station from 09:00 P.M. on 10.04.2021 to 04:00 P.M. on 11.04.2021. Later, another F.I.R. No.162 dated 14.06.2021 was lodged at P.S. Mahila Thana, Kota under Section-(498A and 406) of I.P.C. - alleging cruelty and criminal breach of trust by the Applicant. Further, the Applicant'swife, one Smt. Suman Kala, submitted a complaint/representation on 04.08.2021 to the Senior Divisional Commercial Operations Manager (S.D.C.M.O.) Ajmer - alleging ill-
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 3 OA No. 077/2024 treatment and cruelty leading to filing of the aforesaid F.I.R.s ; and asking for payment of 50% of his salary towards her maintenance. Upon being asked vide letters dated 06.09.2021 and 14.09.2021 of the Office of the D.R.M., Ajmer to furnish his explanation regarding the said complaint/representation,the Applicant had provided the same vide his letter dated 05.10.2021. Later, the Office of D.R.M. Ajmer had further asked the Applicant vide letter dated 03.01.2022 to submit details about his detention and the status of the afore-said criminal cases - which were provided vide letter dated 18.01.2022.
3. Subsequently, another complaint was also lodged on 07.06.2022 by the said Smt. Suman Kala, alleging that the Applicant had misused the Railway Concession Pass issued for travel of his family members, specifically for herself as the Applicant's wife - by making one Smt. Neeru Devi travel against the same during the journey from Ajmer to Amritsar boarding on 26.05.2022 and during the return journey from Amritsar to Ajmer reaching on 30.05.2022. Applicant's statement in this regard was recorded initially on 10.06.2022 as part of a preliminary inquiry. A Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 03.08.2022 under Rule-9 of the Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 [the R.S.(D.&A.) Rules-1968] was also issued against the Applicant by the Respondent No.2 as the D.A. It had contained two articles of charges - the Charge-I pertaining to not furnishing information duly regarding the detention of the Applicant by the P.S. Railway Colony Kota City and his subsequent release on Bail ; and the Charge-II pertaining to misuse of facility of the Railway Concession Pass issued in the name of his wife Smt. Suman Kala, by using it for travel of another person, in violation of the Railway Servants Pass Rules, 1986 [the R.S.(Pass) Rules-1986].
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 4 OA No. 077/2024 The Applicant had submitted his preliminary statement of defense dated 17.08.2022, denying the aforesaid charges and also stating that the Respondent No.2 was not the competent authority for initiating/conducting disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant in light of R.B.E. No.82/97 dated 04.08.1997 of the Railway Board. Notwithstanding, vide order dated 26.09.2022, the Respondent No.2 had appointed the Assistant Operations Manager (A.O.M.) Ajmer, as the Inquiry Officer. The I.O.had held the proceedings on different dates (13.12.2022, 22.12.2022, 06.01.2023 etc.) after which the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023 had been submitted, whereby in respect of both the charges, the Applicant was held to be guilty of having violated the respective Rules under the RS (Conduct) Rules-1966/the RS (Pass) Rules-1986. The said Inquiry Report had been forwarded vide Letter dated 10.03.2023 of Respondent No.2to the Applicant for making his representation,which was furnished vide his Letter dated 13.04.2023. The Respondent No.2, after considering all the information available as such before him, had imposed the major penalty of "reduction in pay scale by two stages for three years, with future/cumulative effect" upon the Applicant vide impugned Order dated 12.05.2023. Thereupon, theApplicant had preferred an Appeal dated 24.06.2023 as per Rule-18 of the R.S.(D&A) Rules-1968 against the imposition of major penalty as such. The said Appeal had been disposed of by Respondent No.3 as A.A., vide the impugned Order dated 21.09.2023 - whereby the punishment imposed upon the Applicant by the D.A. had been retained ; and the Applicant was also advised to file for revision as per Rule-25 of the R.S.(D&A) Rules-1968, in case aggrieved with the said appellate order -which was conveyed to the Applicant vide Letter dated 04.10.2023 of the Office of the D.R.M., Ajmer .
4. The Applicant had filed the present O.A. upon being aggrieved by the impugned appellate order dated 21.09.2023 of YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 5 OA No. 077/2024 the Respondent No.3, as conveyed vide letter dated 04.10.2023 of the office of the D.R.M. Ajmer, seeking the substantive reliefs inter alia - that the impugned punishment order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. whereby the Applicant stood punished with the punishment of 'reduction in pay scale by two stages for three years with future /cumulative effect'and the impugned appellate order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A. whereby the aforesaid punishment order stood upheld,be quashed and set aside and the entire departmental action initiated against the Applicantbe declared as illegal, invalid and void ab initio ; and that the Applicantbe entitled to all consequential benefits with @ 18% p.a. interest as if impugned orders had never been passed against him.
5. It was the Applicant's case that the disciplinary proceedings conducted were improper on several technical/procedural counts. Firstly, the A.D.R.M.(Op.) Ajmer was not competent for issuing charge-sheet and acting as the D.A. for the Applicant,who was working under the administrative control of Sr. Divisional Operations Manager(Sr.D.O.M.) ; and the Respondent No.3 as the A.A. had not at all addressed the question of competence of Respondent No.2 for the same. Secondly, the Applicant had alleged that one Dharmendra Ojha, D.T.E.,had participated in examination of witnesses during inquiry, without locus standi and without putting his signature, which had vitiated the said inquiry proceeding ; and the same issue had also not been addressed by the A.A.Thirdly, the Applicanthad contended that impugned penalty order dated 12.05.2023 of the Respondent No.2 as the D.A. and the impugned appellate order dated 21.09.2023 of the Respondent No.3 as the A.A. were issued in a non-speaking manner and showed non-application of mind - and were thus unsustainable. Fourthly, the Applicant had contended that the impugned penalty order dated 12.05.2023 of Respondent No.2 as the D.A. and the impugned appellate order dated 21.09.2023 of YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 6 OA No. 077/2024 Respondent No.3 as the A.A. had referred to his personal affairsbeyond the charges, which had led to irrelevant conclusions.
6. Further, in respect of the substantive charges brought against him, it was also the contention of the Applicant that the Charge-I pertaining to the concealment of the factum of his detention at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota City under Section-(151 and 107) of Cr.P.C. on 10/11.04.2021 could not be sustained - since he had informed of the same orally to the Divisional Operational Manager on 15.04.2021 as well as through his written submissions dated 05.10.2021 and 18.01.2022. Further, it was also the contention of the Applicant that the Charge-II pertaining to his having facilitated the travel of another person against the pass issued in the name of his wife Smt. Suman Kala in violation of RS (Conduct) Rules-1966 and the RS (Pass) Rules-1986was not sustainable because the same was utterly vague and the conclusions against the Applicant were based on conjectures and surmises without any material to support those conclusions.
7. Vide their reply, the Respondents had accepted only those averments and contentions that were matters of record or those that had been specifically admitted to, inter alia -that the Applicant had been appointed Goods Guardwith the N.W.R. in 2018 and promoted later as Senior Train Manager (Goods) ; that although not informed at the relevant time, F.I.R. No.120/2021 dated 10.04.2021 at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C. pursuant to which the Applicant was also detained under Section-(151 and 107) of the Cr.P.C. at the said police station and F.I.R. No.162 dated 14.06.2021 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Kota under Section-(498A and 406) of I.P.C., came to be filed against him ; that further, his wife, one Smt. Suman Kala, had also submitted a complaintto the S.D.C.M.O. Ajmer on 04.08.2021, alleging ill-treatment and cruelty leading to filing of YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 7 OA No. 077/2024 the aforesaid F.I.R.s and asking for payment of 50% of his salary towards her maintenance ; that thereupon, the Applicant wasasked vide letters dated 06.09.2021 and 14.09.2021 of the Office of the D.R.M., Ajmer to furnish his explanation regarding the said complaint and the referred F.I.R.s, which he had provided vide letter dated 05.10.2021 ; that the Office of the D.R.M. Ajmer had further asked him vide letter dated 03.01.2022 to submit details about his detention and the status of criminal cases, which were provided by the Applicant vide letter dated 18.01.2022 ; and that subsequently, another complaint was lodged by the said Smt. Suman Kala on 07.06.2022 alleging that the Applicant had misused the Railway Concession Pass issued for travel of his family members, specifically for his wife - by making one Smt. Neeru Devi travel against the same from Ajmer to Amritsar and back between 26/30.05.2022.
8. The Respondents had further agreed inter alia - that the Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 03.08.2022 had been issued under Rule-9 of the R.S.(D.&A.) Rules-1968 with two articles of charges pertaining to Applicant's non-informing duly of his detention/release on Bail by the P.S. Railway Colony Kota City and to misuse of facility of the Railway Concession Pass issued in the name of his wife Smt. Suman Kala, by using it for travel of another person, in violation of the R.S.(Pass) Rules-1986 ; that the Applicant had submitted his preliminary statement of defense dated 17.08.2022, denying the aforesaid charges ; that vide order dated 26.09.2022, the A.O.M. Ajmer was appointed as the I.O., who submitted the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023 whereby the Applicant was found to be guilty of having violated the respective provisions under the RS (Conduct) Rules-1966/the RS(Pass) Rules- 1986 in respect of both the charges ; that the said Inquiry Report was forwarded vide Letter dated 10.03.2023 to the Applicant, who furnished his representation vide Letter dated 13.04.2023 ; that YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 8 OA No. 077/2024 the Respondent No.2 as D.A., after considering all the information available as such before him, had imposed the major penalty of "reduction in pay scale by two stages for three years, with future/cumulative effect" upon the Applicant vide impugned Order dated 12.05.2023 ; and that the Applicant had preferred an Appeal dated 24.06.2023 against the imposition of major penalty as such, which had been disposed of by Respondent No.3 as A.A., vide the impugned Order dated 21.09.2023 whereby the punishment imposed upon the Applicant by the D.A. had been retained, which was conveyed to the Applicant vide Office of D.R.M. Ajmer's Letter dated 04.10.2023.
9. Per contra, the other averments and contentions in the O.A. had been denied by the Respondents. In respect of the technical / procedural objections raised in the O.A., the Respondents had submitted that the R.B.E. letter No.82/1997 dated 04.08.1997 was inapplicable in the present case, since that had been issued by the Railway Board in regard to the disciplinary powers/competence of Divisional Safety Officers (D.S.O.s) in respect of operating staff. It had been issued in the context of the then prevalent situation - that whilepreviously itselfthe Commercial Officers were specifically excluded from exercising disciplinary powers in respect of operating staff, the D.S.O.s being under the Operation Department had continued exercising disciplinary powers against operating staff - and it been clarified thereby that the D.S.O.swould also be excluded from the same. Resultantly, it was decided that the disciplinary action in cases of operating staff should be initiated and finalized by the authorities under whose administrative control the delinquent employee may be working. Also, in the present case, the Senior D.O.M. and D.O.M.were the subordinate authorities to A.D.R.M.(Op), Ajmer. Therefore, Respondent No.2 as authority higher in hierarchy to the Applicant's appointing authority (i.e. Sr.D.O.M) was competent to issue charge-sheet to YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 9 OA No. 077/2024 the delinquent and to act as the D.A. It was further submitted that the A.D.R.M.(Op.) Ajmer was a competent authority to issue charge-sheet as well as to impose penalty upon the delinquent employee as per Schedule-II, Sl.No.5, which specified that ADRMs in relation to departments attached to them or DRMs in relation to all classes of non-gazetted staff were competent to impose penalties specified under Clause-[(i) to (vi)]. Secondly, regarding the allegation of one Dharmendra Ojha assisting the I.O.,the Respondents had mentioned that one Smt. Monika Yadav, A.O.M. Ajmer, was appointed as the I.O. for inquiry against the Applicant pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 03.08.2022 and had conducted the said inquiry accordingly and submitted the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023. The Respondents had contended moreover that the Applicant had never taken such an objection during the course of the inquiry nor submitted the same before the D.A. in this regard.Hence, the Applicant's allegation against the I.O.'s inquiry being vitiated by one Dharmendra Ojha assisting the I.O.was stated to be without any basis or cogent ground and unsubstantiated- and was clearly an afterthought intended to mislead this Tribunal. Thirdly, while denying the Applicant's contentions relating to the impugned penalty order dated 12.05.2023 of the Respondent No.2 as the D.A. and the Appellate order dated 21.09.2023 of the Respondent No.3 as the A.A., the Respondents had contended inter alia - that the D.A. had imposed the penalty upon the Applicant vide a well-reasoned and speaking Order dated 12.05.2023, after going through the entire Report dated 18.01.2023 of the I.O. and the representation dated 13.04.2023 submitted by the Applicant as the delinquent employee ; that the A.A. had rejected the Applicant's appeal against the said penalty order dated 12.05.2023 vide a reasoned and speaking Order dated 21.09.2023, after going through the entire material available on YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 10 OA No. 077/2024 record. The Applicant had been unable to prove his allegations in this regard ; therefore,the said impugned Orders being issued in a non-speaking manner or without application of mind were emphatically denied.
Fourthly, regarding the Applicant's contention that the matters at the center of the disciplinary proceedings were of a personal nature, the Respondents had mentioned that they had the authority as well as the responsibility to take action in accordance with statutory provisions if the conduct/action of the Applicant fell under the definition of misconduct or moral turpitude. In the present case, the actions of the Applicant that led to lodging of - the F.I.R. No. 120 dated 10.04.2021 at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota under Section-(341, 323 and 34) of the I.P.C. alleging wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt to his wife and his parents- in-law ; the F.I.R. No. 0162 dated 14.06.2021 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Kota under Section-(498A and 406) of I.P.C. alleging cruelty and criminal breach of trust ; and the complaint dated 07.06.2022 by his wife to the Railway Department authorities alleging that he had misused the Railway Concession Pass issued in her name inter alia for travel from Ajmer to Amritsar and back between 26/30.05.2022 by travelling not with her (the wife) but with one Smt. Neeru Devi - were deemed to be such misconduct/set of actions under the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966, the RS(D&A) Rules-1968, and in violation of the RS(Pass) Rules-1986.
10. In respect of the substantive contents of the O.A. regarding the actual charges brought against the Applicant vide the charge- Memo dated 03.02.2022, the Respondents had submitted firstly regarding the Charge-I, that the Applicant was required to communicate the factum of his arrest/detention at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota City under Section-(151 and 107) of Cr.P.C. on 10/11.04.2021 immediately in writing to the concerned competent YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 11 OA No. 077/2024 authority ; and that there was no provision for its verbal communication. In fact, the Applicant hadconcealed the same as no information had been immediately conveyed or communicated by him to the concerned competent authorities either orally as claimed or in writing, as no evidence in support of it being furnished timely was available or provided. Instead, the same had been intimated for the first time well later on 05.10.2021,only pursuant to the queries vide letters dated 06.09.2021 and 14.09.2021 of the Respondents. It was contended that in the current electronic era, various modes for written communication were available; therefore, the plea of verbal communication taken by the Applicant was even more illogical and unacceptable - seemingly taken only for the purpose of engineering his defence. Regarding the Charge-II pertaining to his having facilitated the travel of another person against the pass issued in the name of his wife Smt. Suman Kala in violation of the RS (Conduct) Rules-1966 and the RS (Pass) Rules-1986, the Respondents had averred inter alia - that the departmental inquiry had been duly conducted and concluded with the finding that the said allegation was substantiated on the basis of evidences, statements and relevant documents on record ; that it was not controverted by the Applicant that the Railway Concession Pass had included the name of Smt. Suman Kala as the wife of the Applicant, but she had not travelled either while boarding on 26.05.2022 from Ajmer to Amritsar or back from Amritsar to Ajmer reaching on 30.05.2022 - and yet her reservations had not been cancelled ; that instead it was shown to and thus recorded by the respective T.T.E.s that the Applicant was travelling with his wife, purportedly indicating that he had travelled with another womanand showed her to be his wife ; and that the Applicant had not corroborated his defence in this regard at the stage of inquiry/disciplinary proceedings.
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 12 OA No. 077/2024
11. It was also contended on behalf of the Respondents that the raising before the Tribunal of the defence as such by adducing documentary evidence in support of his contentions was impermissible since the re-appreciation of evidence was beyond the scope of judicial review of the department inquiry proceedings, as per the law laid down vide the authority of the Judgment and Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of related cases, inter alia in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]
- which had also been cited.
Further, it was presented on behalf of the Respondents that the degree of proof required in the disciplinary proceedings was not the same as that in criminal proceedings ; and the disciplinary authorities were to reach their conclusions based on the preponderance of probability and not on the ground of strict proof of evidence. Hence, the contention of the Applicant that the lack of exact identity of which woman had travelled with the Applicant in violation of the RS(Pass) Rules-1986 would not render the related charges as vague or untenable as the preponderance of a travel as such was significantly made out.
Moreover, no violation of any extant Rule or prescribed procedure
- in issuing the punishment order of the D.A. as well as the appellate order of the A.A. upon the delinquent employee- was made out despite allegations by the Applicant, who also had the alternative remedy to prefer a revision application before the Revisional Authority available to himthat had not been availed ofby him prior to filing the present O.A.
12. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed thereto and perused the relevant extant provisions inter alia of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966, the RS(D&A) Rules-1968 and its Schedule-II, the RS(Pass) Rules- 1986, as cited before us ; andthe related guidelines of the Railway YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 13 OA No. 077/2024 Board vide the R.B.E. No.82/97 dated 04.08.1997 and the Master Circular No.67 dated 23.12.2019, as were also cited before us. The arguments of the learned Counsels for the Applicant and for the Respondents had also been heard - including those about the ambit of this Tribunal in matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and the related citations of the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted in course of the hearings, which were taken on record.
13. In light of the contention on behalf of the Respondents regarding the scope of powers of judicial review of the disciplinary matters by this Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to advert at first to the law laid down in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No.7939-7940 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No.7941-42 of 2022, both of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath - had comprehensively gone into the issues related to the scope of judicial review and interference of courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, inter alia as follows :
"15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or if statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.
16. In the above context, following are the observations made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) :
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 14 OA No. 077/2024 evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal.
......
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
[Emphasis laid] ......
19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610] held that :
"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, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge 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 YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 15 OA No. 077/2024 second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether :
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(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;
(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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not :
(i) reappreciate 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."
......
22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P.Gunasekaran(supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor." YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 16 OA No. 077/2024
14. With due sensitization regarding the limited remit of the Tribunals/Courts in disciplinary proceedings as per the law laid down as aforesaid, we examined the issues raised in the present matter before us. Thereby, at the outset, it was deemed apposite to examine whether the A.D.R.M. (Op.) Kota was competent or not to act as the Disciplinary Authority for the Applicant. Upon the perusal of the R.B.E. No.82/97 dated 04.08.1997 sought to be relied upon by the Applicant, it was found to be on the subject of 'Disciplinary Powers of Divisional Safety Officers in respect of Operating staff'. It was issued in the context of the situation that the instructions of the Board dated 28.07.1962 prescribed that the disciplinary action should be initiated and finalized by the authorities under whose administrative control the delinquent employee may be working ; and that while reiterating the same vide Letter dated 16.10.1973, Commercial Officers were specifically excluded from exercising disciplinary powers in respect of operating staff - but the same powers were still tacitly permitted for the Divisional Safety Officers, since they belonged to Operation Department. It had thus been decided by the Board vide the R.B.E. No.82/97 dated 04.08.1997 that - "Henceforth, only Sr. D.O.M.s/D.O.M. will exercise disciplinary powers in respect of Operating Staff, even in matters relating to violation of safety norms. Any practice contrary to the above that may be in force on the Zonal Railways, may be discontinued forthwith." Thereby, apart from the previous exclusion of Commercial Officers, the Divisional Safety Officers also had been excluded from exercising disciplinary powers to initiate and finalize disciplinary action in respect of delinquent operating staff even in matters relating to violation of safety norms.
However, the Applicant had sought to submit that the statement therein - that only the Sr. D.O.M.s/D.O.M.s will exercise disciplinary powers in respect of Operating Staff, even in matters YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 17 OA No. 077/2024 relating to violation of safety norms - implied that even the other authorities of Operation Department, viz. the A.D.R.M.(Op.) in the present case, were also excluded from acting as the D.A. for the Applicant in the present case. The Applicant had further sought to rely on the Master Circular No.67 dated 23.12.2019, which was a selective handy compilation of the various relevant circulars covering important points while handling disciplinary cases; specifically citing the para-2(e), which stated as hereunder -
"(e) While (a), (b), (c) and (d) above refer to the level of the Disciplinary Authority, the Authority who actually functions as Disciplinary Authority can be none other than the one under whose administrative control the delinquent employee works. Also there can be only one Disciplinary Authority for an employee, e.g. for an operating staff, who is under the administrative control of Divisional Operating Manager (D.O.M.), only the D.O.M. can act as Disciplinary Authority, even if the misconduct pertains to violation of commercial rules or safety rules and not Divisional Commercial Manager or Divisional Safety Officer."
On the other hand, the respondents had presented firstly, that it was important and relevant to keep in view the intent behind each of the aforesaid guidelines cited by the applicant - viz. R.B.E. No. 82/97 dated 04.08.1997 and Master Circular No.67 dated 23.12.2019 - which was for ensuring that the authority under whose administrative control a delinquent operating staff works should act as the D.A., even if the purported misconduct pertained to violation of commercial rules or safety rules Thus, the administrative authorities of the Operation Department were to act as disciplinary authorities and not Divisional Commercial Manager or Divisional Safety Officer. It was further averred that consequently there was no doubt that the D.A. in the case of the applicant had to be from the Operation Department, which was admitted/accepted by the Applicant also. However, the Applicant had raised the plea vide the present O.A. regarding the level of the authority within the Operation Department who should act as the D.A. for him, claiming that only the Senior D.O.M. or D.O.M. should have acted as the D.A. in his case. However, the Master YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 18 OA No. 077/2024 Circular No.67 dated 23.12.2019 cited by the applicant had itself provided in para 2 (a) as follows:
"The chargesheet should be issued by the appropriate Disciplinary Authority prescribed in the schedules. It is also essential that the chargesheet is signed by the Disciplinary Authority himself and not by any lower authority on his behalf."
Further, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents to the Schedule-II relevant for Rule-4 and Sub-rule 2 of Rule-7 for showing the appropriate D.A. as prescribed therein. Thereby, while vide entry at Sl.No.4, Junior Administrative Grade Officers and Sr. Scale Officers holding independent charge or in charge of a department in the Division were prescribed as the authority to act as D.A. in respect of all classes of non-gazetted staff for imposing penalties specified in clauses [(i) to (vi)] and suspension ; however further, vide entry at Sl.No.5, the A.D.R.M. in relation to the departments attached to them or D.R.M.s were also prescribed as the authority to act as D.A. in respect of all classes of non-gazetted staff for imposing penalties specified in clauses [(i) to (vi)] and suspension.
Thus, it emerged that the A.D.R.M.(Op.) of Kota Division was in fact one of the prescribed Disciplinary Authorities as per the Schedule-II to the RS (D&A) Rules-1968 and was thus competent to issue the charge-Memo dated 03.08.2022 to the Applicant in the present case ; and to consequently act as the D.A. and impose the punishment vide the impugned Order dated 12.05.2023.
15. Regarding the Applicant's contention that one Shri Dharmendra Ojha, D.T.E. had acted illegally by participating in examination of the witnesses during the inquiry and thus the inquiry itself was vitiated, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had reiterated with reference to the relevant annexures in the present O.A. itself, that the Applicant had not raised the said issue of at any opportunity available to him - inter alia, either during the YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 19 OA No. 077/2024 Inquiry itself or while submitting his written brief dated 13.12.2022 before the I.O. ; or,while making his representation dated 13.04.2023 on the Inquiry Report before the D.A. It was emphasized that this issue was raised for the first time at the stage of filing the appeal dated 24.06.2023 by the Applicant before the A.A. Apart from it being impermissible to be raised anew as such, it was also raised as a blank allegation, without any evidence at all to substantiate the same.
On the basis of the material presented before us as aforesaid, we found force in the presentation and arguments on behalf of the Respondents in this regard that this issue was raised by the Applicant belatedly and that too without fulfilling the onus of providing any substantial evidence to support it.
16. Regarding the claim of the Applicant that the impugned penalty order dated 12.05.2023 of the Respondent No.2 as the D.A. and the impugned appellate order dated 21.09.2023 of the Respondent No.3 as the A.A. being non-speaking or showing non- application of mind - the learned Counsel for the Respondents while seeking a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. had submitted that it would show that this had covered the substance of the charges, the factual circumstances as well as the findings of the I.O. adequately. Moreover, the impugned punishment order dated 12.05.2023 had been issued in agreement with/acceptance of the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023 of the I.O. into the charges inter alia the other material available on record. It was a settled position that when the D.A. was in acceptance of the Inquiry Report findings, a detailed reasoning is not required in the final order for imposing punishment. Further, the A.A. had duly looked into the correctness of the impugned punishment order dated 12.05.2023 wherein itself the competence of the D.A. had also been gone into/ incorporated by referring to YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 20 OA No. 077/2024 Schedule-II, entry-5. The impugned order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A. had been issued pursuant to and in agreement with the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. and the conclusions derived by the A.A. had recorded the reasons for those. On the basis of the material presented before us as aforesaid, we found that the impugned Order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. which was issued in agreement with/acceptance of the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023 ; and the impugned Order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A. which was issued in agreement with the said Order of the D.A. had mentioned of the respective findings on the basis of the material available before them ; and could not be shown to be issued without adequate reason or without application of mind or to be issued in a non-speaking manner.
17. Further, the issue that his personal affairs had been incorporated in the aforesaid impugned punishment order dated 12.05.2023 had been raised by the Applicant in his pleadings ; and had also been raised at the stage of arguments by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. It was found on examination of the said impugned Order that the mention therein of the marital dispute between the Applicant and his wife had been incorporatedeither at the behest of Applicant in his written communication or that of the Applicant's wife in her complaint dated 07.06.2022. Moreover, the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 had mentioned of the provisions of the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966 for maintaining good conduct, inter alia for supporting his wife and children for their livelihood. The learned counsel for the Respondents had argued that the Conduct Rules-1966 also enjoin upon any railway servant to do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway servant and maintain high ethical standards ; and the Applicant's behaviours/actions- that had led to the filing of the F.I.R. No.120/2021 dated 10.04.2021 at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota pursuant to which the YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 21 OA No. 077/2024 Applicant was also detained at the said police station and F.I.R. No.162 dated 14.06.2021 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Kota and further the complaint of the Applicant's wife before the Railway Department authorities - were cited to show/substantiate that the conduct of the Applicant reflected through such behaviour/actionwas deemable as violative of the RS(Conduct)Rules-1966and tantamount to misconduct on his part. It was also submitted that in any case, the charges against the Applicant vide the charge-Memo dated 03.08.2022 were in respect of non-informing of his detention by the police immediately thereafter and in respect of violation of the RS(Pass) Rules-1986 - and the mention of the related facts cannot be precluded on the grounds that it had included his personal affairs. It was also reiterated that the punishment imposed upon the applicant, although in cognizance of the findings in respect of a combined chargesheet, was the minimum punishment for violation of the RS(Pass) Rules-1986, the applicability of which cannot be challenged on the ground that such violation be deemed to have resulted from the Applicant's personal affairs. Thus, it emerged on the basis of the examination of the material before us and the rival contentions that although arising out of the personal affairs of the Applicant, the charges vide the charge- Memo dated 03.08.2022 pertaining to non-information timely of the FIRs lodged against him and detention in connection with the same and pertaining to misuse of Railway Concession Pass were reasonably shown to be within the purview of the respective RS(Conduct) Rules-1966 and the RS(Pass) Rules-1986 respectively. The mention of the facts related to such behaviour/conduct of the Applicant were found to be on the basis of the contents of the submissions either of the Applicant or of his wife ; and were not found to be unduly relied upon out of context.
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 22 OA No. 077/2024
18. Apart from the technical objections as aforesaid, the conduct of the disciplinary and appellate proceedings had also been examined. At the outset, it was noted that the same had followed from the filing of the complaint dated 04.08.2021 and another complaint dated 07.06.2022 by the Applicant's wife, one Smt. Suman Kala. Upon conduct of preliminary verification/enquiry, a Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 03.08.2022 was issued under Rule-9 of the R.S.(D.&A.) Rules-1968 against the Applicant on two articles of charges - the Charge-I pertaining to non-information in time about the detention of the Applicant and subsequent release on Bail by the P.S. Railway Colony Kota City ; and the Charge-II pertaining to misuse of facility of the Railway Concession Pass issued in the name of his wife Smt. Suman Kala, by using it for travel of another person, in violation of the R.S.(Pass) Rules-1986. Upon considering the denial of the charges by the Applicant vide his preliminary statement of defense dated 17.08.2022, the Respondent No.2 had appointed the A.O.M. Ajmer as the I.O. vide order dated 26.09.2022. After conducting the inquiry on different dates, the I.O. had submitted the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023
- whereby the Applicant was held to be guilty in respect of both the charges by having violated the respective Rules under the RS(Conduct) Rules-1966/the RS(Pass) Rules-1986. The said Inquiry Report had been forwarded vide Letter dated 10.03.2023 of Respondent No.2 to the Applicant for making his representation, which was furnished vide his Letter dated 13.04.2023. After considering all the information available as such before him, Respondent No.2 as the D.A., had imposed the major penalty of "reduction in pay scale by two stages for three years, with future/cumulative effect" upon the Applicant vide impugned punishment Order dated 12.05.2023. Against the imposition of major penalty as such, the Applicant had preferred an Appeal dated 24.06.2023 as per Rule-18 of the R.S.(D&A) Rules-1968 ; which had been disposed of by Respondent No.3 as A.A., vide the YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 23 OA No. 077/2024 impugned appellate Order dated 21.09.2023 - whereby the punishment imposed upon the Applicant by the D.A. had been retained ; and the Applicant was also advised to file for revision as per Rule-25 of the R.S.(D&A) Rules-1968, in case aggrieved with the said appellate order - which was conveyed to the Applicant vide Letter dated 04.10.2023 of the Office of the D.R.M., Ajmer . It emerged from the foregoing that the departmental enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant had been held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
19. Also further, in respect of the substantive charges vide the chargesheet dated 03.08.2022, the Applicant had challenged the findings and actions of the Respondents in respect of Charge-I by mentioning in his defence that he had purportedly intimated the fact of the filing of F.I.R. against him and his consequential detention verbally to his immediate superior authorities. No provision of rules / guidelines had been cited as justification for the purported verbal intimation. Apart from denying that any oral intimation had at all been made, Respondents had averred that any declarations/intimations required to be made by any railway servant to the Department/administrative authorities were to be made in writing only, which was not done timely by the Applicant. While adverting to the relevant Conduct Rules, it was shown that the provisions relating to oral communications had pertained only to official matters - and evenin case of official matters, oral instructions were to be avoided as far as possible and were allowed only to be issued by a senior officer to his subordinate, subject to those being confirmed in writing immediately thereafter. In the present case, the purported oral intimation - for which different dates and concerned authorities had been mentioned by YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 24 OA No. 077/2024 the Applicant - was neither for any official instruction, nor was the applicant a superior authority but was in fact a subordinate. Therefore, it was found that the Applicant's reliance on a timely verbal communication having been made by him about the filing of F.I.R. against him and his detention at the Police Station, apart from being without any supporting evidence, was found to be devoid of any legal basis in any case.
20. In respect of Charge-II regarding misuse of Railway Concession Pass, it is indisputably admitted that the said pass was issued inter alia for Smt. Suman Kala as the wife of the Applicant ;who had not travelled between 26/30.05.2022 from Ajmer to Amritsar and back, but the T.T.E. / Railway records had showed that the journeys were performed by her. The Respondents had thus drawn the conclusion on the basis of preponderance of probability that another woman had travelled against the said Railway Concession Pass. The Applicant had sought to challenge the aforesaid finding as the basis of impugned punishment Order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A., as confirmed also by the impugned appellate Order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A., by seeking a different appreciation of the various evidences that were examined by the I.O./D.A., or by seeking to present additional evidences that were not presented by him before the I.O. or D.A. In light of the settled position vide the authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtcited supra at para-12, we refrain from venturing into re- appreciation of such evidence or going into its adequacy or reliability. It also emerged that findings of facts in the disciplinary proceedings were not reached without any evidence at all ; and that the conclusions reached were not so wholly arbitrary and capricious that a reasonable person could never have arrived at.
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 25 OA No. 077/2024
21. In the conspectus of the foregoing, it had emerged that the main issue in the present O.A. had been whether the chargesheet dated 03.08.2022 and the impugned punishment order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. were issued by the competent authority ; and whether the impugned punishment Order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. and the impugned appellate Order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A. were legal or otherwise. It was found firstly that in relation to the departments attached to them or D.R.M.s, the Respondent No.2 / A.D.R.M. was also prescribed as the authority to act as D.A. in respect of all classes of non-gazetted staff for imposing penalties specified in clauses [(i) to (vi)] and suspension vide entry at Sl.No.5. in Schedule-II of the RS (D&A) Rules-1968. Secondly, it had been found in respect of the various technical issues inter alia - that the issue of unwarranted participation in the inquiry proceedings by one Dharmendra Ojha was raised by the Applicant belatedly and that too without providing any substantial evidence to support ; that the impugned Order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. issued in agreement with/acceptance of the Inquiry Report dated 18.01.2023 and the impugned Order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A. which was issued in agreement with the said Order of the D.A. had mentioned of the respective findings on the basis of the material available before them ; and could not be shown to be issued without adequate reason or without application of mind or to be issued in a non-speaking manner ; and that although the charges vide the charge-Memo dated 03.08.2022 pertaining to non-information timely of the FIRs lodged against him and detention in connection with the same and pertaining to misuse of Railway Concession Pass had arisen out of Applicant's personal affairs, those were reasonably shown to be within the purview of the respective RS(Conduct) Rules-1966 and the RS(Pass) Rules-1986 and were not found to be unduly relied upon out of context so as to be untenable.
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30' 26 OA No. 077/2024 Thirdly, it had also emerged that the departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant had been held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Further, the Applicant's reliance in respect of Charge-I that a timely communication had been made verbally by him about the filing of F.I.R. against him and his detention at the Police Station, was found to be devoid of any legal basis in any case, apart from being without any supporting evidence. Moreover, in respect of Charge- II pertaining to misuse of the Railway Concession Pass, while holding that the findings of the facts in the disciplinary proceedings were not reached without any evidence at all ; and that the conclusions reached were not so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at them - we also deemed it impermissible to enter into a different appreciation of the various evidences that were examined by the I.O./D.A. or to go into any additional evidence not presented before them.
22. Therefore, we did not find that the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant were vitiated or the consequential impugned punishment Order dated 12.05.2023 of the D.A. or the impugned appellate Order dated 21.09.2023 of the A.A. had suffered from a serious lacuna or illegality so as to render them unmaintainable. Hence, we hold that those did not require to be interfered with by this Tribunal. We order accordingly.
23. The present O.A. is dismissed. Pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of in accordance. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ysm/
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=
DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER = 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc030d SINGH ef98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b27311 MEENA 9b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2025.12.04 10:42:40+05'30'