Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Shyam Lal Aged About 56 Years Son Of Late ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 10 September, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No. 505/2011 Reserved on 31.8.2015 Pronounced on 10.9.2015 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A) Shyam Lal aged about 56 years son of late Dalla Ram resident of 463N/151 B, Nayak Nagar, Sitapur Road, Lucknow Applicant By Advocate:- Sri M.A. Siddiqui Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. The C.M.E., N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. The A.D.R.M., NE Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 4. The Sr.D.M.E. (O&F), N.E. Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 5. The DME/NE Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 6. The Ashwani Kumar Dixit, son of Sri Ramesh Chand Dixit (for Sr. DME (O&F) resident of 1/153, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Respondents By Advocate: Sri B.B.Tripathi for Sri M.K.Singh ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following prayer:-
a) The Honble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned orders as contained in Annexure No. A-1, A-2 and A-3.
b) After quashing the impugned orders A-1, A-2 and A-3 all the consequential benefits be granted.
c) Any other relief as considered proper by this Honble Tribunal be granted to the applicant.
d) cost of the application be awarded in favour of the applicant.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant joined the respondents organisation in 1987. In 2008, he was served with a major penalty charge sheet. The applicant submitted the reply to the charge sheet and thereafter the applicant was suspended. During the said period, the enquiry officer was appointed and the applicant has also requested for change of enquiry officer. The said request was rejected and after completion of the enquiry proceedings, the copy of enquiry report was served upon the applicant to which applicant submitted the reply. The reply of the applicant as well as enquiry officers report was submitted to the authority and vide order dated 28.8.2009, the applicant was punished with WIT for a period of one year.
3. The applicant submitted the appeal and the appeal of the applicant was also considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority. The applicant has also submitted a revision petition and the said revision petition was also considered and rejected by the authorities. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, preferred the present O.A.
4. On behalf of the applicant, it is indicated that allegation so levelled against the applicant are not correct and he was always polite to his superior authority and never misbehaved with any of them. Apart from this, it is also indicated by the applicant that applicant has requested for change of enquiry officer but the same was not done and the rejection at the request for change of enquiry officer was also not done by the competent authority.
5. Apart from this, the learned counsel for applicant has also levelled allegation upon the enquiry officer that he was under the influence of his superior authority, though copy of the enquiry report was duly communicated upon the applicant and the applicant has also given the reply to the same but punishment was awarded to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also challenged the appointment of the enquiry officer and has indicated that the same has not been done in accordance with rules and the charge sheet is also issued by an authority who is not competent to do so.
6. On behalf of the respondents, reply is filed and through reply it is indicated by the respondents that there is nothing wrong in the action taken by the respondents, therefore, no interference is required and since the applicant was afforded full opportunity during the course of enquiry but the prosecution side has been able to substantiate their case, accordingly, the disciplinary authority has punished the applicant, which has also been upheld by the Appellate authority as well as Revisionary authority.
7. Apart from this, it is also indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was given full opportunity of hearing and he was also provided all the relevant documents. The respondents counsel also argued and submitted that since the applicant misbehaved with his senior officer, as such charged sheet was given to him and after due enquiry, the punishment was awarded and there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry, as such it does not require any interference by this Tribunal. The respondents has also indicated in their counter reply that the applicant refused to perform certain official work. Apart from this, it is also indicated by the respondents counsel that after full-fledged enquiry, the punishment of WIT for a period of one year is imposed and the appellate as well as revisioniory authority after considering all the material available on record rejected the claim of the applicant.
8. On behalf of the applicant, Rejoinder Reply is filed and through Rejoinder Reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and denied the contents of the counter reply. Through Rejoinder Reply, the applicant once again reiterated and submitted that since the applicant has made a complaint against Sri A.K. Dixit , DME, as such enquiry so conducted is illegal and it requires interference by this Tribunal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
10. The applicant while working in the respondents organization was charge sheeted under SF-5 through which it is indicated that on 8.11.2008, one Sri Narain Singh Chief Crew Controller asked the applicant who was working as Office Superintendent -I Diesel Lobby Charbagh, Lucknow to complete the pending work, upon which the applicant misbehaved with Chief Crew Controller and refuse to complete the work, which is a misconduct on the part of the Railway employee and the same amounts to misconduct on the part of the applicant.
11. The copy of the charge sheet was given to the applicant and the applicant submitted the reply on 22.12.2012 through which the contents of the charge sheet are denied and it is indicted that the charge sheet may be cancelled and also taken a ground that the same has not been issued in accorded with Rules.
12. After issuance of the charge sheet and reply so received by the applicant, the enquiry officer was appointed and applicant made a request for change of the enquiry officer through his letter dated 12.1.2009 which was duly replied by the Divisional Railway Manager through his letter dated 19.1.2009 and the request of the applicant for change of enquiry officer was rejected and as regard providing of the relevant documents is concerned, it is indicated in the said order that all the relevant documents has already been given to the applicant as such, request of the applicant was turned down and the enquiry proceeded ahead.
13. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted the detailed enquiry and submitted report on 20.7.2009 in which it is indicated that the applicant is found guilty of the offence as mentioned in the charge sheet. The bare perusal of the enquiry report shows that the applicant was given due opportunity to participate in the enquiry and copy of the enquiry report was duly communicated to the applicant. The applicant also submitted reply to the enquiry report through his reply dated 4.8.2009 and denied the allegations so levelled against the applicant.
14. The reply of the applicant along with copy of the enquiry report was subsequently placed before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority passed an order of WIT for a period of one year with permanent effect, through his order dated 28.8.2009. While passing the said order, the disciplinary authority has categorically indicated that the applicant approached one Lallan Prasad as independent witness and when he reached the Diesel Lobby at that point of time, there was a great rush and hot conversation was going on.
15. The disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that there is a dispute between the parties and the applicant was found responsible for misbehaving with his superior authority and accordingly the punishment was awarded.
16. The applicant not being satisfied, preferred the appeal to the appellate authority through his appeal dated 9.10.2009 and the appeal so submitted by the applicant was also considered and rejected by the appellate authority through his order dated 17.12.2009.
17. The applicant again submitted the revision petition and the same was rejected by the revisionary authority vide order dated 13.12.2010.
18. The bare perusal of the Appellate as well as Revisionary authority also shows that both the authorities came to the conclusion that the applicant misbehaved with his senior officer, as such punishment so imposed upon the applicant of WIT for a period of one year is justified and the appeal as well as revision was rejected by the authority.
19. The bare perusal of the entire proceedings shows that the parties involved in the instant case is completely proceeded with the case in accordance with law and there is no procedural irregularities in conducting the enquiry. The request of the applicant for change of enquiry officer as well as demand of documents was also considered and decided by the authorities.
20. It is also indicated that in fact the procedure for initiation of disciplinary proceedings is generally governed by Rules having statutory force and disciplinary procedure must be consist with the principle of natural justice. A departmental proceedings is a quasi judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved and the enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a findings upon taking into consideration the material brought on record by the parties.
21. In the departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the findings of the disciplinary authority. As such, when the enquiry is conducted by the Inquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded with the completion of the enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the disciplinary authority In the instant case, the applicant was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry and he also participated, as such in terms of the decision rendered in the case of State Bank of Bikaner Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in 2011 (4) SCC 584, that the courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. 22 Apart from this, the scope of judicial review is very limited and it has been held by the Honble Apex Court in number of decisions that interference in the matter relating to disciplinary proceedings is not called for until or unless it is violative of principle of natural justice.
23. As observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. U.O.I. & ors. reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings the Court are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence.
24. In another case the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Upendra Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary enquiry is very limited. The Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be.
25. Considering the observations of the Honble Apex Court and submissions made by the parties as well as facts of the case, the applicant was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry and there appears to be no infirmity in conducting the enquiry, as such we are not inclined to interfere in the present O.A.
26. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Jayati Chandra) (Navneet Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-