Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Shanmugam vs M/O Railways on 26 March, 2025
1 OA No.310/01880/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01880/2016
Dated this the 26th day of March, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R. Shanmugam,
S/o V. Rajagopal,
No. 51, Lakshmi Street
Rasipuram,
Namakkal District .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s L. Chandrakumar
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep by the Senior Divisional Engineer / Co. ord.,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem.
3. The Principal Chief Engineer,
Southern Railway Headquarters Office,
Park Town, Chennai.
4. The General Manager,
Southern Railway Headquarters Office,
Park Town, Chennai .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. A. Abdul Ajees
2 OA No.310/01880/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"........ to call for records relating to memo of the first respondent made in no. Con/SA/VS/109 dated 26-12-2007 and that of the consequential order of the second respondent made in Advice no. Con/SA/VS/109 dated 02-03-2010, 3rd respondent's Order made in No. P(A)88/2009/358 dated 06- 11-2012, and the 4 respondent's order made in No. P(A)88/2009/358 dated 13-05-2013, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into railway service with all consequential benefits, both service and monetary, and to pass any order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The applicant states that he was issued a major penalty charge memo, which led to the penalty of Compulsory Retirement effective from 02-03- 2010. His departmental appeal and revision petition were rejected by both the Appellate Authority and the Revising Authority. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 54 of 2011 before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, which, on 04.07.2012, set aside the penalty of Compulsory Retirement and remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The Appellate Authority, however, rejected the appeal again and upheld the penalty. The Revision Petition was also once again denied by the Revising Authority. In light of this, the applicant filed OA No.577 3 OA No.310/01880/2016 of 2013 before the Ernakulam Bench. Unfortunately, this application was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, with the applicant being granted the liberty to approach the competent Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Consequently, the applicant has approached this Chennai Bench of the Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the draft charge memo was prepared by the Vigilance Wing of Southern Railway and forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority under a cover letter, dated 24-09-2007 (Annexure A-3). The letter contained the term "Stiff Major Penalty" in Paragraph 1, which the applicant argues is highly significant. According to the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual 2006 (Chapter VIII), "Stiff Major Penalty" is defined to include penalties such as removal, dismissal, and compulsory retirement. The applicant asserts that the use of the term "Stiff Major Penalty" in Annexure A-3 essentially directed the statutory authorities to impose only such penalties on the applicant. This, according to the applicant, undermines the independence of the inquiry process, making it a mere formality. Since the statutory authorities have seemingly acted at the direction of the Vigilance Wing rather than independently, the applicant argues that the penalty order should be set aside on this ground alone.
4 OA No.310/01880/2016
4. The applicant further contends that the Vigilance Wing specifically directed the appointment of a designated Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. It is submitted that the statutory authorities were obligated to appoint only the individuals specified by the Vigilance Wing, and could not appoint any alternative officers for these roles. The applicant highlights that such appointments, dictated by the Vigilance Wing, have been criticized and deemed improper by various judicial forums, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On this ground as well, the applicant argues that the penalty order should be annulled.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had requested the Inquiry Officer to provide copies of additional documents essential for his defence. However, contrary to established legal principles, the Inquiry Officer rejected this request, which severely prejudiced the applicant's ability to defend himself effectively. Additionally, the applicant referred to Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, which mandates that at the conclusion of an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer is required to inform the charged official of the circumstances that are unfavorable to him, allowing the official an opportunity to offer an explanation or remarks. In this case, the Inquiry Officer failed to comply with this provision, further undermining the fairness of the proceedings. 5 OA No.310/01880/2016
6. He also submitted that, dissatisfied with the penalty of Compulsory Retirement imposed upon him, the applicant filed a detailed appeal (Annexure A-23), which was rejected by the order in Annexure A-24. Furthermore, the Revision Petition (Annexure A-25) was dismissed through the order in Annexure A-26, without addressing any of the points urged by the applicant, nor in accordance with the directions issued by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 54 of 2011.
7. The applicant's counsel argued that the principles of natural justice were violated, along with procedural irregularities at every stage, from the issuance of the Charge Memo to the disposal of the Revision Petition. As a result, he contends that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside by the Tribunal.
8. Furthermore, he highlighted that the penalty of Compulsory Retirement was imposed on him effective 02-03-2010, and nearly 15 years have passed since then. He asserts that a strong case has been made for both the annulment of the impugned orders and for his reinstatement into Railway Service with all consequential benefits.
6 OA No.310/01880/2016
9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon on the following judgments and prayed that the OA is to be allowed as prayed for by the applicant.
(i) Judgment, dated 17.12.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7349 of 2008
(ii) Judgment, dated 16.01.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C ) No.384/2020.
(iii) Judgment. Dated, 12.09.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court in WP.
(C ) No.5288/2014.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the applicant's submissions, referring to the reply statement filed. He argued that the Disciplinary Authority had thoroughly reviewed the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry report, and other relevant documents. Based on this, the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the charges against the applicant were proven beyond doubt, leading to the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, effective from 02.03.2010. Additionally, he pointed out that the penalty advice was served to the applicant on 04.03.2010, and the applicant's services were formally terminated by order, dated 05.03.2010. In accordance with Rule 64 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, 75% of the pension and gratuity that would have been granted if the applicant had retired on Compensation Pension were sanctioned.
7 OA No.310/01880/2016
11. The counsel further mentioned that the applicant filed an appeal on 18.03.2010, and he was personal hearing by the Appellate Authority on 21.06.2010. After reviewing the appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement in an order, dated 08.07.2010. The Revision Petition, dated 28.07.2010, filed by the applicant was considered by the Revising Authority and confirmed the penalty in an order dated 26.11.2010.
12. The applicant then challenged the decisions of the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revising Authorities by filing OA 54 of 2011 before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, in its order dated 04.07.2012, set aside the Appellate Order dated 08.07.2010 and the Revisionary Order dated 26.11.2010. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration, taking into account the grounds raised by the applicant.
13. The applicant, following the orders of the Ernakulam Bench in the OA 54 of 2011, requested a personal hearing. As a result, he was granted a hearing on 05.10.2012 by the Appellate Authority. In his appeal, the applicant raised several issues, including the appointment of the Inquiry 8 OA No.310/01880/2016 Officer and Presenting Officer, the conduct of the departmental proceeding under the Vigilance organization's instructions, the Inquiry Officer's failure to follow Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968, the existence of prior enmity between the applicant and the complainant, the non-supply of requested documents, and the Divisional Railway Manager's competence to impose the penalty.
14. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the Appellate Authority carefully reviewed the applicant's concerns and concluded that the grounds raised lacked merit. It upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, issuing a speaking order on 06.11.2012, which was communicated to the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a Revision Petition on 10.11.2012. The Revising Authority reviewed the petition in accordance with Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules. After examining the disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Report, and the decisions of both the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, the Revising Authority determined that all procedures were properly followed and that the findings were supported by the evidence. The Revising Authority, therefore, confirmed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, communicated to the applicant by order dated 13.05.2013. The respondent's counsel contended that all procedures were followed in 9 OA No.310/01880/2016 accordance with the relevant rules and prayed for dismissal of the OA. He relied upon the orders, dated 19.11.2015 of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.936 of 2013.
15. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the pleadings, and the materials placed on record. We have also gone through the case laws referred to by the respective parties.
16. It is seen that a Major penalty charge memo, dated 26.12.2007 was issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer/ Co-ordination, Southern Railway, Salem Division which reads as under:
"Shri R. Shanmugam SE/W/SA, while working as SE/W/PT during February 2007 had committed gross misconduct in as much as:
On 28.02.2007, he had demanded and accepted Rs.1500/- (Rupees Thousand Five Hundred only) as illegal gratification from Shri C. Magesh a railway contractor out of the earlier demanded Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for issuing a no claims certificate in connection with refund of security deposit to Shri C. Magesh, Engineering Water Supply contractor for the work of supply of potable water by contractors own source to colony and station at BQI vide contract agreement No. J/429, dated 30.08.2005.
Thus Shri R. Shanmugam has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant, thereby contravening Rule 3 (i) (ii) &
(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966"10 OA No.310/01880/2016
17. In order to hold an inquiry into the aforementioned charges framed against the applicant, an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, and an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the applicant were proven. The applicant submitted a written brief, and the Disciplinary Authority, after reviewing the Inquiry Officer's report and other documents, found the charges substantiated and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The applicant appealed, but the Disciplinary Authority's decision was upheld. A revision petition was also rejected. Aggrieved by this, the applicant filed OA No. 54 of 2011 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal which remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the applicant's points. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a representation on 05.10.2012, which was considered by the Appellate Authority. After a personal hearing, the Appellate Authority issued a well-reasoned order on 06.11.2012, confirming the Disciplinary Authority's decision. The applicant then filed a revision petition, which was also rejected by the Revisionary Authority with a detailed order on 13.05.2013.
18. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the Tribunal has the authority to intervene in disciplinary matters or punishment in an appellate capacity.
11 OA No.310/01880/2016
19. Courts have consistently held that the scope for judicial review of the discretion exercised by an employer in imposing a particular penalty on a delinquent employee is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that High Courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters or substitute their opinion for that of the disciplinary authority. It has been established that the punishment imposed by the competent authority cannot be altered or substituted with a lesser penalty unless the Court is convinced that the punishment is grossly disproportionate or shockingly unreasonable such that no reasonable person, in the given facts and circumstances, would have imposed such a penalty.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, recently in the case of M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs Rajendra D. Harmalkar in Civil Appeal No.2911 OF 2022, held that 'Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration by this Court is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in interfering with the conscious decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. On the question of judicial review and interference of the courts in matters of disciplinary proceedings and on the 12 OA No.310/01880/2016 test of proportionality, a few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to:
In the case of Om Kumar(supra), this Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority to order and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as 'Wednesbury principles'.
In the Wednesbury case, (1948) 1 KB 223, it was said that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. Lord Greene further said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered, or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken."
21. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, along with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Authority, as directed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, objectively reviewed the applicant's appeal, providing a personal hearing before upholding the compulsory retirement imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Revisionary Authority has noted that the case was examined by several officers at various stages and that no new facts were presented that could mitigate the charges. As a 13 OA No.310/01880/2016 result, the Revision Petition filed by the applicant was dismissed.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that neither authority has committed any error in passing their respective orders that would warrant our interference.
22. In the result, the OA is is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
26. 03.2025
mas