Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
S N Sharma vs M/O Railways on 8 April, 2021
O.A. No. 286 of 2017 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA No.286 of 2017 Present: Hon'ble Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)
1. Sri Siv Nath Sharma aged about 56 years S/o Late Ram Narendra Sharma of Vill/PO/Dist -
Mahasamund, Chhatisgarh, presently working as Sr. Technician (Electrical) Mahasamuind, in East Coast Railway.
.......Applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Nayapalli, Dist - Khurda.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur, AT/PO/PS/Dist - Sambalpur.
3. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (G) Sambalpur, East Coast Railway, AT/PO/PS/Dist - Sambalpur.
4. Divisional Railway Manager (P), East Coast Railway, Sambalpur AT PO/PS/Dist - Sambalpur.
5. Sr. Section Engineer (Electrical), East Coast Railway, Kantabanji, Dist - Bolangir.
......Respondents.
For the applicant : Mr. B. Dash, Advocate.
Mr. C. Mohanta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. M. K. Das, Advocate.
Heard & reserved on :23.03.2021 Order on :08.04.2021 O R D E R Per Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J) O.A. No. 286 of 2017 2
1. The case of the applicant in brief as inter alia averred in the OA is that despite him being Sr. Technician he was directed by the Respondents to take charge of store room meant for the Jr. Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure A/1). The applicant submitted that vide his representation dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure A/2) he requested not to give him the charge of the office since it involves maintenance of documents about which he is totally ignorant. The respondents vide letter 02.02.2016 (Annexure A/3) issued memorandum of charges for imposing minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rule 1968. Thereafter despite his representation dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure A/4), punishment of "Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of three years with (NCE)" was imposed with immediate effect vide order letter dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure A/5). The applicant submitted that he was again directed vide letter dated 29.04.2016 (Annexure A/6) was again directed to take charge of store. The applicant then submitted represented against the punishment before the ADRM, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur vide letter dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure A/7) and to the Sr. Divisional Railway Manager about him being subjected to harassment vide letter dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure A/8). The applicant submitted that he was again issued memorandum of charges on 21.07.2016 (Annexure A/9) for alleged misconduct regarding poor maintenance of station building. The applicant submitted that punishment passed by disciplinary authority earlier was given effect to by not releasing the increment from July 2016 (Annexure O.A. No. 286 of 2017 3 A/10).Hence he has filed this instant OA with the following prayers:
a) The original application may be allowed.
b) The order under Annexure A/5, Annexure A/6 and Annexure A/9 may be quashed.
c) The respondents may be directed to release the consequential benefit by allowing the applicant to receive the benefit by allowing the applicant to receive the benefit of Annual increment as usual.
d) Such other order(s)/direction(s) may be given in giving complete relief to the applicant.
2. The respondents in their counter inter alia averred that after transfer of JE (Elect)/MSMD, the applicant being senior most electrical staff at the station was handed over the charge of the entire store materials but the applicant totally denied to take the charge of store materials and loudly argued and misbehaved with the SSE for which the applicant was imposed minor penalty of "stoppage of annual increment for a period of three years with (NCE)' after following the prescribed procedures. The respondents submitted that the appeal of applicant dated 26.05.2016 was examined and disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.11.2017 and punishment was modified to "stoppage of annual increment for a period of 18 (eighteen months) with non cumulative effect". Similarly another representation dated 20.10.2016 of the applicant was disposed of by ADRM/SBP vide order dated 24.11.2017 by modifying the punishment to "stoppage of annual increment for a period of 12 (twelve months) with non cumulative effect". Hence his increment w.e.f. July 2016 was not released since the punishment imposed to the applicant was not over and O.A. No. 286 of 2017 4 continuing. The respondents submitted that minor penalty charge sheet dated 21.07.2016 was issued by the disciplinary authority after inspection of MSMD Railway Station by the Divisional Railway Manager who alleged about poor maintenance of station building at MSMD and that there was no harassment of the applicant since both the charge sheet were issued on separate issues. The respondent also submitted that the OA is not maintainable since the petitioner has not availed alternative remedy available to him under the law.
3. The applicant in his rejoinder to the counter submitted that it is not correct that he was senior most electrical staff and there were other senior technicians which he had mentioned in his representation dated 02.06.2016. The applicant submitted that he did not loudly argued and misbehaved with the SSE and these allegation have been brought in the counter although the charge sheet never carried such allegation. The applicant submitted that denial to take up charge of the office of a senior officer cannot constitute a case of misconduct for which a charge sheet can be drawn and since he was under
educated person completely engaged in field work all throughout his career his denial ought not to have been considered a failure to maintain devotion to duty and an act unbecoming of a railway man which is allegedly in contravention to Rule 3.1(ii) & (iii) of the Railways Servant Conduct Rules, 1966. The applicant further submitted that the ADRM Sambalpur/Appellate Authority modified the order twice on 10.11.2017 and 24.11.2017 on his representation preferred much earlier and punishment was reduced. The applicant submitted that on the day of inspection SSE sent the applicant and one Sri Khemraj Sahoo to Bolsunda O.A. No. 286 of 2017 5 station for some work and in the said circumstances alleging the applicant of negligence in duty is thoroughly concocted. The applicant submitted that electrical staffs vide reply dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure A/13) apprised the authority about such victimisation of the applicant.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through their pleadings and materials on record. The applicant has taken the categorical stand that since he is less educated and ignorant about maintenance of documents therefore he was not in position to take detailed charge of store room meant for the Junior Engineer (Electrical) on the transfer of the said junior engineer to another place. The exact educational qualification of the applicant is not known as the same has not been clearly mentioned either from the side of the applicant or from the respondents either in the counter or in the relevant documents. Besides that, the nature of duty which the applicant was supposed to do is also not clearly revealed from the materials on record. It is claimed by the applicant that since he was working as Sr. Technician, he could not have been directed to take detail charge of junior engineer which includes taking charge of stores. He has also taken the stand that other seniors were also available for that purpose. The disciplinary authority has not properly examined the said aspect. Accordingly the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure A/5) is quashed. Therefore it is necessary to remand back the matter back to the disciplinary authority so that he would give due opportunity to the applicant to place relevant materials in support of his stand that he is not able to read and write English and he is semi literate and ignorant about maintenance of documents. The O.A. No. 286 of 2017 6 disciplinary authority shall also make endeavour to ascertain from records regarding the exact nature of job the applicant was supposed to do and his educational qualification, experience and the feasibility of the applicant to take detailed charge of the post of Junior Engineer including the charge of stores. Thereafter the disciplinary authority can give necessary findings as to whether there has been any misconduct on the part of the applicant as alleged in the charge memo against him in the disciplinary proceeding. The entire exercise should be completed preferably within a period of six months and communicated to the applicant. The impugned order vide Annexure A/5 is thus set aside.
5. Accordingly the OA is disposed of with above observation but in the circumstances without any order to cost.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (MEMBER) (J)