Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs D.K. Upadhyaya Judgement Given By: ... on 12 December, 2013
Writ Petition No :: 20279 / 2012
Union of India and others Vs. D.K. Upadhyaya
12.12.2013.
Shri Vivek Shukla for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission.
This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, challenging an order-dated 7.8.2012 - Annexure P/1,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
(hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') in O.A. No. 514/2012. By the
aforesaid order, punishment imposed upon the respondent in the
matter of recovery of excess electricity duty paid by the railway administration, has been quashed and relief has been granted to the respondent employee.
Respondent - D.K. Upadhyaya was working as a Senior Section Engineer (Electrical) at the relevant time when he had initiated the proceedings before CAT. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide memorandum dated 21.2.2011 under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and based on the same a punishment order-dated 6.9.2011 was imposed whereby it was found that he has acted in a manner which resulted in causing loss of `12,03,854/- to the Railway Administration and accordingly punishment of withholding of two complimentary passes for two years, total four set, was imposed upon him and a sum of `12,03,854/- was directed to be recovered from his salary in installments.
Appeal and revision filed having also been dismissed the matter travelled to CAT. Before CAT, a three fold submission was made by the respondent/employee. His first contention was that the disciplinary authority - respondent No.3, which had 2 initiated the action against him, was totally biased and prejudiced against him. It was stated that after he joined the department in the year 2007, within a short period of four years, respondent No.3 issued six charge-sheets to him and also made various adverse entries in his service record. It was said that prior to joining of the said officer, the employee had never been charge-sheeted and he had received 'good' and 'very good' entry in his annual confidential reports. Accordingly, the first ground was bias and prejudice of the disciplinary authority.
The second ground was that the employee concerned was neither the controlling or the competent authority who had processed the bills or made any payment, he was only a person who was available on the spot and it was pointed out that he cannot have any control over the manner in which the electricity is consumed by the Railway Administration in the area in question.
That apart, the third ground canvassed was that certain documents which were relevant were not supplied and the disciplinary authority based on extraneous considerations, which were not at all relevant, has held the employee concerned guilty of the charges.
Even though the Railway Administration refuted all the allegations and tried to justify that all documents and opportunities were granted, even translated copies of the documents in Hindi were granted, the fact remains that the Tribunal evaluated the entire matter and found that the employee in question was not responsible either for passing or payment of the bills, he was only a junior officer and he was in no way 3 concerned with the payment of the bills in question. It was also found that there is nothing available on record to indicate that the competent authority ever conducted any fact finding inquiry for the purpose of fixing responsibility for higher consumption of electricity or the question of payment of inflated bills for the year in question.
The Tribunal has evaluated each and every aspect of the matter and has found that the disciplinary authority in a detailed speaking order imposing the punishment, has adverted to consider various questions such as various quarters lying vacant and, therefore, the possibility of consumption of electricity in these quarters are not proper to come to a conclusion. It was found that all these facts did not form part of the inquiry and certain documents sought for were also not supplied on the ground that they are irrelevant. After evaluating the entire matter, the Tribunal in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 has analysed the facts in detail and has found that the punishment has been imposed without any justification and the liability imposed and the responsibility fixed on the respondent employee is not warranted.
A detailed finding has been recorded by CAT and except for contending that the findings are perverse and is not made out from the material available on record, nothing is brought to our notice to say as to why and on what basis the findings should be rejected.
The Division Bench of the CAT having exercised its jurisdiction in accordance to law and having given a detailed finding to say that the respondent employee is not responsible for 4 the loss caused, we see reason to interfere into the matter exercising limited jurisdiction in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (A.K. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aks/-