Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Anowara Begam vs Eastern Railway on 21 April, 2021
* i
0, £
m
<foas-
I
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL !:
,i KQLKATA BENCH
// KOLKATA ' !
/ No.O.A.385/2013 Date of order: V
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs; Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee; Administrative Member i
[fj X. Anowara Begum, widow of
i Late MdStfowsad Molla aged
] About 56 years , Occupation-Housewife,
i
i
residing at village Pubar, P.O. Pandak,
1
■]
P.S. Ausgram, Dist. Purba Bardhaman,
Pin-713132; i
i
2. Rahena Khatun, wife ofGolamNabi, I
Aged about 34 years, Occupation-Housewife,
residing at Viliage-Shanbaha, P.O. Bondar,
P.S. Nanur, Distrit-Birbhum, Pin-731215;
t
3. Anjumanara Khatun, wife of Sk. Sanour Ali,
Aged about 33 years, Occupation-Housewife,
Residing at village-Pubar, P.O. Pandak,
P.S. Ausgram, District-Purba Bardhaman,
Pin-713152
fl!
Applicants
->•
VERSUS-
;
1. Union of India through the General Manager,
•:
,» Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 001;
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, 17,
> N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 001;
3. The Senior Divisional Engineer(2), Eastern
Railway, Howrah Division, Howrah;
i:
4. The Assistant Engineer, Eastern Railway,
Bardhaman, Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal
Respondents
A?
For the applicant : Mr. S.K. Datta, counsel • /•
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Guha, counsel
\ / T. '
: iX •
V
■ \
a:
&
'ST
W. *
. r*- A
/ !
2 i
?
! S
F
!.
ORDER
V Bidisha:Baneriee.JudicialMember J ■ Ld.xounsels were heard. i
2. This applicatiorrhas been preferred-to'challengetherlegalityrand .f propriety of a charge sheet; penalty-order-and-appellate"order. The t I reliefs'sought forare as under:-
"a) An order quashing-and/or setting aside the Memorandum of charge sheet dated.25.11.09 and the entire proceedings held thereunder;
b) An order quashing and/or setting:aside the:departmentaf inquiry and the order of penalty-dated. 22.11.2011 i
c) An order quashing and/or setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.9.2012;
d) An order directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant including all monetary benefits;
e) An~order directing the-respondentszto 'produce/causeiproductiomof all relevant records;
f) Any other order orfurther-:order/orders~as'to-this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper."
3. The original application was filed by-the'employee Md. Nowsad Molla in the year 2013. During pendency'of the original application the said Nowsad Molla'passed away on 7th August, 2019. His widow has been allowed to step into his shoes by an order'dated 20.12.2019 in M.A.697 of 2019.
4. FACTS \ Md. Nowsad Molla'wasrcharge^sheeted.viderMemorandumrdated 08.09.2007(Annexure A-2) wherein both"the list of-documents-and the list of witnesses were left blank and therfollowing was written
1. Habitual absent 2) Service Record and 3) Leave Sheet '--a . I,.-,,.,™, , ..
3■ t On the. basis of theraforesaid'proceeding the original applicant was / /• removed from service vide order dated 20.05.2008(Annexure A/3).
Assailing the said-order of removal he filed O.A.No.138 of 2009 before this Tribunal. The O.A. was disposed of vide order dated ■ 22.06'2009(Annexure A/4), directing the original applicant to'forward his appeal to the appropriate authority, and the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose ofthe^appeal within a time frame'of three months and to-communicate the decision to the applicant. The Appellate Authority disposed of the :appeal of the:original-applicant-by its-order dated.30.10.'2009(Annexure A/5), which'read asTollows:-
"It is therefore, advised that the enquiry against the CO may be conducted by issuing a fresh Charge Sheet and the enquiry may be conducted with a view to provide all reasonable opportunities to the CO. Disciplinary Authority is also advised to pass a speaking order."
Thereafter a fresh charge sheet dated 25.11.2009(Annexure A/6) was served on the original applicant. In that charge-sheet two witnesses were named. The original applicant after receipt of The said charge sheet submitted his defence brief dated-30.12.2009. He was served with an Enquiry Report dated 05;07;2010(Annexure A/8). In the.said report it was inter alia .observed that on.25.06.2010 during prosecution enquiry the charged official submitted-medical certificate'as proof. The charged official also stated that after being medically fit for duty since 18.11.2007 he attended before SSE/PW/BWN(W) for resumption but he was not allowed. All prosecution statements have been recorded in writing and signed by the charged official with duly attached medical certificates(photocopies) as submitted by him. The Enquiry Officer in i(• i'. i rf !■ 4 !.
iNf
•i
!?: t;
w his finding noted that the charged official had failed to prove any valid 7
1
reason for not informing his immediate superior about his absence and ..fi
j
i;
the medical certificates submitted by him were inconsistent and .■[
•3
accordingly held'the charges :as"established. Thereafter 'the original
applicant submitted his 'representation- dated 1 26.07.'2011(Annexure >
A/10) wherein he specifically stated that he was not provided all reasonable opportunities to defend his case and also raised other grounds. He was served with the order of removal dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure A/ll). He was removed from service alleging'that he'had failed to prove the reason for absenting'himself from his duty since 6 ?
5 { 29.08.2005 to 17.11.2007. The allegations against the original 4 applicant, Md. Nowsad Molla, Ex-Trackman underarticle of charges, were.found established as per report'of the Enquiry Officerand finally the punishment of removal from railway service, •' imposed on him earlier, was held as "stand-good".
5. THE LEGAL LACUNAE IN PROCEEDINGS AS ALLUDED BY THE APPLICANT
(i) That, during enquiry, none of the witnesses were examined nor allowed to be cross-examined which is in violation of principles of natural justice;
(ii) That, the Enquiry Officer himself admitted that the SSE/PW/BWN{W) did -not'attend "the^ enquiry :but~ the documents tendered by him were relied upon without'affording^nyopportunityto the original applicant of cross examination;
(iii) That the grounds regarding-denial of reasonable-opportunities, i were not considered;
*
/ i'
r.
r..,.
'-if
j
.aS j/ 5 v«
mi
&M. j ,
i \>
(iv) That, in his order the Disciplinary Authority observed that there
was a doubt on his integrity to Railway Administration, which was not the allegation against the original applicant and thus the Disciplinary Authority traversed beyond the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, which is not permissible;
(v) The order dated 22.11.2011_upholding the earlier removal order dated 20.05.2008 based on the earlier charge sheet ■ and the .
proceeding, describing the original applicant as Ex-Trackman would not be sustained as the earlier removal order stood quashed. As such, the Disciplinary Authority's actions were totally arbitrary;
(vi) The appeal, preferred on 05.11.2012, was rejected by order dated 26.09.2012 introducing new facts and without considering the fi grounds stated by the original applicant in his appeal vide Annexure i A/13.
6. To bring home the allegations or grounds of challenge, at hearing, Id. counsel for the applicant would cite the following decisions:-
0) In M.V. Bijlani vs; Union"of -India & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88, inferences were:drawn by enquiry officerthough no specific charge was framed in respect thereof and disciplinary authority proceeded on a wrong premise. Evidences recorded and inferences drawn were not commensurate with the charges. Testimony of witnesses deposing totally against the department wos disbelieved without assigning any reasons therefor. Appellant's removal from service on the basis of the ij aforesaid enquiry report, was held as not sustainable.
Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that "on enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial /unction. He upon analyzing the documents must arrive at conclusion'that there \ .
f had been-Q-preponderance'of-probability to prove-the~charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact or refuseto consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof orreject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with. '
(ii) In Roop Singh'Negi:v$rPunjab:National.Bank:and OthersTeported .
in (2009)1 -Supreme^Courtr.Cases(L&S)-398; wherein chargeiagainst appellant was held to have been established_on"the- basis"of FIR, some otherrdocumentS"and~appellant;S"alleged confessionrbefore'the:police.
These documents were, however, not proved ~during"the course of departmental enquiry by examining and cross-examining the witnesses.
Contentions raised by the appellant were also not considered" by the departmental authorities, yet the appellant was dismissed from service.
Allowing the appeal with costs, and reversing'the decision of High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"A departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial~proceeding. The enquiry officerperforms-a-quasi-judiciahfunctionr-The-chargesrlevelled'against the delinquent-officer must be found to-have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive:at a finding upon-taking into consideration thematerials brought on record by the parties.
The purported evidence, collected-during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be-treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding: No witness was examined to-prove the said documentsrThe-manaaement-witnesses-merelvtenderedthedocuments and did not orove thexontents thereof. Reliance.-inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." {Para 14) In para 23 of the judgement in Roop Singh-Negi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court further held as under
* • '.-V . * : r> -V «'», r?rt H'? ' *->.
■i "23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the '.I appellate authority are not supported by any reason.
•, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The materials brought on record pointing out the.guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences~drawmbv the~ enquiry-officer L .
apparently were~not-supported bv anv-evidence;^ Susoicionras is well J knownrhowever high-may bercan under no-circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof."
(Hi) in Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Another [(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 819], the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that "Administrative Tribunal is entitled to determine whether relevant evidence was taken into consideration, irrelevant evidence excluded arid requisite standard of § proof (preponderance of probability) met in a given case. Tribunal also has power to interfere where test of proportionality isnot satisfied."
It was held that "The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts excluded therefrom, while proving misconduct against an employee. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, <■ even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in Its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidence, the test of doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. Doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality. On certain aspects, even judicial review of facts is also permissible. (Paras 17 and 18) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Tribunal was entitled to consider the question as to whether the evidence led bv the Department was.sufficient to'arrive at a conclusion of guilt or otherwise of the delinquent-officer: While reappreciation of I T' i.
8hid !?:* evidence is not within the domain of the Tribunal, an absurd situation emanating from the statement of a witness con certainly be taken note of. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A departmental instruction cannot totally be ignored. The Tribunal was entitled to take the same into consideration along with other materials brought on record for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to whether the normal rules of natural justice had been complied with or not."
7. THE DISCERNIBLE FACTS:-
(i) The applicant was chargesheeted vide memo dated
08.09.2007(Annexure A/2) for allegations as under:-
r i WTjac-Il H-
__^-stm ^ S'W c:r ;
■ t Ol - ; :
■r
ir'.futiuor^ nf •
JfciBSl Sbri..,'.?-fS.- ..-'.'r....
</ cLirpf nfrc' ••,( lh< Kai)\vay scrvkM) JL a 'A nick-- l jL'f/S'M'T' A ty a/ Jhe, jPjZncDO-y L/mJzf fLu!C' S?/#-
fluJcA a «^-U/Artide--U ,^-m/ArtfcW-fll :
. trrrr-JV'i^AtJtfTirt -IV j ^ T.TV: V f Hi- Wil • ^-rsrrr. ^ -------------------------------- --------- • Sij-rf^a c-.- '-i *' v.-.-s?? CVH «n swu l ' Liil of bv 'vhO» tbc article?- of clvAi pe fi ,\mcc. « ^'inu ^:in.-.77^;..A/..f'::'/4' '. : .C^-r'-.tname ami iK-'icnaiioi .1 the Raiiuv.' j-ervaati are V-
jiiupo&ed to be sustained. ;"!
0 -
p.
SAc&*- ■ a
■»
:#
3
:*
?!
■i
s,-'
U;
L-
'.s-V.-
f-
•i-
■■ • ■(-•/.T-K-t
'9
'■±.-.J
<ii) On 20.05.2008(Annexure A/3) the penalty imposed was as
under:-
.So. DA/1 l/DVS'N . )uu-.. 2P/3S7«fi,
lo /■•
i.'fcL K.MoUa, 'ifacJ •jiun
^Undcr SS E( P. Wnyyii W).
i>utx- Nijlicc Lm coiinck.'lion .'-iiii youj- ivimjv..! liX/ni Klv. Scvvicv;.
Kef:- Tliw oHigy Mo. OA/I : .D'.'/'M.-il.^X.-OK/VJ'/.
in ccMiiinuaJio/i ('J oiiicc umlv-f tof uUovo L'-.-.uoC n< yau i-ni{Usry \v::a h'ild a;iU jKCC-jsarv iav;5 lijiOmijs auWmilicd Ui Uic lauLisiyiivd tiy ,!iv iuiijuii y yijugr Mn A.K.ftiiuH, SSECWyDWN. On (ioijiii tlirough llw sjmg the miiivi.j ynej is cyavineuJ iit.il •. ' >;ou aj-c sjuiUy yi'Ujc cltarucs leveled Juainst you and as a utcasuie al' i^n.illy it is • proposed to remove you Ji'om lily. Saviec. H you wish to mahe ;utv appeal the : pttnaUyyou eun do so within |0 clays.
i Ai.sisiaui hiijjuiewT li.v.-iianj Jjunh-.i.n.
(iii) He preferred O.A.No.138 of 2009 which was disposed of on 22.06.2009 with the following order:-
"3. However, considering the entire issue involved in this case and also in the interest of justice, we direct the applicant to forward appeal to the appropriate authority forthwith and on receipt of such appeal the Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal within a time-frame of three months and decision to be taken thereon be communicated to the applicant accordingly. It is made clear that the .appeal shall be disposed of on merit and not on the question of limitation. The OA is accordingly disposed of."
(iv) On 30.10.2009 the following appellate order was passed:-
r' "Having gone through the entire case the undersigned is of the opinion that reasonable opportunity was not given to the CO as he had failed to attend two consecutive hearings. Moreover, the punishment notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Assistant Engineer/Burdwan was not accompanied with any speaking order. It is in contrast to the principle of natural justice. The undersigned also feels that such a long period of absence from duty without any information at this modern age of communication is definitely not consistent with the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The charges against the CO are therefore serious.
ft is therefore, advised that the enquiry against the CO may be conducted by issuing fresh Charge Sheet and the enquiry may be conducted with a view to provide all reasonable opportunities to the CO. Disciplinary Authority is also i advised to pass a speaking order."
f;
■
i*
/ r
£
i.
i .
i
10
(v) Pursuant"to the liberty, a fresh charge sheet dated-10.12.2009
was issued with'the'allegations as under:-
"Unauthorised absent in duty from 29.08.2005 (not legible) which violates the Rly. Service Conduct Rule...... (not legible) d(iii) of 1966 as amended time to time."
(vi) The said charge memo was issued afresh without withdrawing the earlier memo dated 08.09.2007. Railway Rules as in RBE 171/1993 is explicit that:-
Sub: Issuing fresh charge Memorandum after cancellation.' withdrawal of original charge Memorandum.or after.dropping.disciplinary proceedings.
1. It has come co the notice of che Railway Board that on one of the Zonal Railways, the Memorandum.of charges issued to an employee was withdrawn by the disciplinary authority with the intention of issuing fresh detailed Charge Memorandum. Moreover, while withdrawing the charge sheet, no reasons therefor were given and it was only stated that the charge sheet was being withdrawn. The issue of a.fresh charge Memorandum subsequently was challenged by the employee before CAT/Sombay. The Central Administrative Tribunal on hearing the case have quashed the charge Memorandum holding that-unless ' there is a power in che disciplinary authority by virtue ol the rules or administrativejnstructiohs to give another charge sheet on the same facts after withdrawing the first one. the second charge sheet will be entirely without authority
2. The matter has been examined and it is clarified that once the proceedings initiated under Rule 9 or Rule 11 of RS (D&A) Rules. 1968 are dropped, the disciplinary authorities would be debarred from initialing fresh proceedings against the delinquent officers unless the reasons for cancellation of the originaf'cHarg^-' ^ Memorandum or for dropping che proceedings are appropriately mentioned and it is dulv stated in the .
order that the proceedings were being dropped without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the circumstances of Che case. It is. therefore, necessary that when the intention is to issue a fresh charge sheet subsequently, the order cancelling the original one or dropping the proceedings should be carefully worded so as to mention the reasons for such an action indicating the intention of issuing charge sheet afresh.appropriate to the nature of me charge.
(vii) The applicant replied on 30.01.2009 as under:-
1. That X ora --
before tbs data of my abaaoco from ^ r woat wao closed on 3unday-29-|-o^w^ 3, g.asE^.Way/BwrvA.Qat 0.,, inmediota superior the mate or one
2. beins inform g;jMgg -
Doctor.
along with the original ^ to:your notice, through your o- .- 1 could 'SSJS'tho Short own>l<S»t annexing ^th^roafS'-' in writing 6 ^^^^l^LlSificeto-on .19-11-2007-and theroaf to.
SnrSSfaSSs
® ^ ^ th° .
' V S5*.»'v
.1'
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx / xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx { 1 4, That your aforesaid charge, sheet is- ^ibsolutely untenable and not raaintainablo for lawful1 submission in regards to the R.S.U&Wo 1968 and laws of the land. Vour issued aforesaid charge sheet is collet fresh and Aipliceto.floth are contrasting each other in meaning,bore is confusion. I could not understand clearly, "Moreover many variation found in between previous .and so called fresh & explicate charge sheet,
5. That Misplaced unauthentiefited wording in the material charge Memaraadun iO as hereunder u
(i) 'long absent' can neve: be suitable in the case,g£ Bine while I was under medical treatment beyond jcu: Central. A patisnt -can not be called long absent, I was ton unable, •
(ii) 'Habitual absencfl'-rte wrd 'absent' i.e, absence a from dity and 't does not pay employee ar.d is subjected to discifiU^gy=iaction_and __ • 'V if-' / Unauthorised absent has not been brought, in this, case. But word f ¥ Ss used whiles framing the charge. The vord "unauthorised* meaw not .
jSWeilabio and Authorised means »- Legal Pooer or. right, iSk; Disdlplinary authority should not be confused while using such word.v'ill^P in the..charge against roe.. Therefore myself who is available should cailedCunauthorised. Available and not available is the vital questiohr^fi- Ho one; should'bs-'a judge for this own cause. 5, That I am rendering ray faithful service of a/Perroaneat oangroan .Si* 1979 after completion of temporary service for year under SS2/P;,Wey^Bw^iE| r K'gst and was also victim of illness bearing treated under the Raliway.^'Mif! Sectors in Railway Hospital for long period of same kind of sickness Therefore 1 am requesting you to'be kind enough end consider oyc'iie'e'pathef 1^1ych3cvis<? ray .family will remain in starvation.
7. That your aforesaid Memorandum of Charge Sheet has not been votted;;by|fe the officers of the Railway Personal Branch. 1. ;4*|M|p
8. That you are requested to make collection from your end the records t-
(a) Railway board's No.?(3)67 LE-2/2 dated- 7-0-1967 .JM
(b) Railway board's No,P/B/III/7S-3PN/l Dated- 16.6.1976.
(c) Railway Board's No,79/1W3 dated-10-5-1979
(d) Railway Board's No,F{B)/m/70 PN-l/l dated-13-6-1971.
r Sf These gre invariable available, in the office of the CPO/kiGw if nor at Sr, DPO/B, Rly/HKH and these are vital for the disdplibaff proceedings conteraplotod aga'inst roe by you.
(e) That in the event of the disciplinary Inquiry in respect of-t , | raaterial charge sheet in question, I required to be furnished the oe.-i' true copy of tbo RUD, '. 5
ii) That i shall be informed the ncroe of ity nominating person % later on in the event o£ your'decision for bolding disciplinary Xnqua^ 1 hspe vormly .that your kind authority will pass order for m my joining duty at once and obliged.
■M ........
I R5?> r >
(viii) The findings of the 1.0. show total non-consideration of this plea as in the reply dated 30.12.2009, which reads as under:- ' 7:ht- C.O. ha.? submiiied a decJaralion daicd 02.03.10 to defend himself againsithe subjected .DA v/ithout any Defends Helper. .
"In: enquiry was scheduled on 27.03.10,07.05.10 and 25.06.l-J rwipcetively. The C.O. has auenJed a!:
sch-eda.led dates w per venue of the enquiry.
On 27.03.10 - Ne enquiry was preceded due to V.LP. and Diviimi;,! H.O.D. inspcciiun hcidni HA 07.05. i 0 - Ourinu prosecution of enquiry Md. Molla, C.O. .bicd that he Imd been absent I'rt'ir. dm .:':.!.',rt.i)5 iiir hi!; sschiess and left Hd. qrs. for better medical Ire itiii-m at out s'de of the Rly. wiihota nfr.;! .•.•or.issio!- from the sujicricr. The C.O. also slated that all meciea! dopuniciits are lying wiiji Inm. 1; i-
nm-.M.ceO on n.-xt dote of enquiry.
..Oa lis'hOf/1 r> - i.'mring prosecution of enquiry, the CO. has subintticd the proof wSj.of medical cendicm^' •..•i rroof. The C'.O. also stated that afkr getting medically fit f( i duty since IS.11.2007,lie attended Me-.. '. for resumption, but is still sustained.
p-osec.iiKm:. siatemcnts have been recorded in writing duH signed by the C.O and dttly atiadu .i in-ciive!; certinene (photo copies) as submitted by 0)c C.O Tiv.; ^SC/f'W,'BA'N(V.r) did not attend before the pr.'sceiition of the enquiry, btu oidv ir.-• tite oiTciai nxoru.i.
a ) Findings i .ha ve carefully gone through the all prosecution statements tncl proof ness of medicals certificates submitted thy tlicC.O and the facts remained that.the C.O. has lailcd.to prove any valid reason why ht-.vvH:
not inform his immediate Superior SSE/PWA3WN(W) about he; absence, as well as the medical ceni'.T.::-
•.vere ulso inconsistent. So the allegation against Md. Nowsad i.'iolla.Tr.man ol'SSE/PW/BA'N(.\V:i m;.!,- article of charges are established for the period frum 29.0S.20C5 to 17.11.2007 and the resi periu.i 1 is. 11.2007 to till dales is sustainable..
V
(ix) The Disciplinary Authority on 26.11.2011 passed the following order:-
M SPEAKING ORDER:-
.Aficr observing all the enquiry reports and its finding report 1 can conclude that Md. NowsVid;1q^^ 1 Molla, £x.'Trackman is guilty, reasons for my conclusion are furnished below:- '
i) Due to his long unauthorized absent, Rly. Adpiinistrolipn is being deprived to get Kisi47^^|:
service and' it is difficult to manage the work which he"was entrusted i.e loss of tnari^l^^ . power by which Rly. could not recover his output. :
ii) He has failed to prove the reason for absenting himself from his duly since 29/OS/2005, tq4>l^^ 17/11/2007 "the allegation against Md. Nowsad Molla, Ex. Trackman under anicle.-^fi^^l • of charges are established as per finding report of inquiry officer..
iii) All his representation shows that his mind is working on aggressive mood and re- •.
tributary terms which is not the altitude of work man ship manner and proves un- ^ "
expecting as a RJy Servant i.e there are doubt on his integrity lo Rly. Administration. The punishment of removing form Rly service imposed to him earlier is hereby stand good.
iv) If Md. Nowsad Molla wishes to make any appeal against the above penalty he can do so.
within a period of 45 days to the Sr. DEN(2)/H\VH ( here indicate the name and designation of the affiliate authority) through proper channel. While doing so he should keep in view the provision of 1 & 2 of rule 21, of Rly. servants Da Rule 1968 which .are reproduced bclow/ovcr leaf.
Assistant Engineer Eastern Railway/Burdwan Disciplinary Authority 4 The said ordershows total non-application of mind on the following i V. ;.1 r, ■7 •'I r / {_ +jr\ f
(i) Whether second-charge memo without-withdrawing the first one, was maintainable;
(ii) Whether the applicant was afforded reasonable opportunity r to meet the charges;
(i'i) Whether the absence was willful and as such the penalty was commensurate with the offence;
(iv) Whether earlier penalty could "stand good" after the Appellate-Authority directed issuance of a fresh charge sheet;
(v) Further, the Disciplinary Authority doubted the integrityof the employee-which was not the charge, hence, he traversed beyond thexharge makingtherpenalty orderunsustainable.
The applicant's detailed appeal dated 05.01.2012 was disposed of on 26.09.2012 with the following cryptic order, passed without.addressing the issues in appeal about the legality of the proceedings:-
Eastern fimlway amm(^sssa>/$3/?Cii2 HWH. citd. ■ i b-1 • i Wmmm F^»^fra6j<man;QanfliNO.03, Sub Your aooeei dated 05.1.2012 against Purtohmert & Notice No. DA'11/3WN/tJ.Mcl!a, dated 22.11....
' (RemovalfromServlcew.e.f.22.11.2011).
& After going through the dotalle of your • 9 any information to your Mat.® of Gang or any oth®r Supervise. -
K wording.
You had . also been given enough opportunities to prove the .
-M i absentee wlthoutany Information te-tho P. Way Mato orSuparvi^th-^-c-.d --
even in the enquiry, whatever was produced was not convincing Documents. p
Therefore, the punishment Imposed by D.A Stand as it is :-M
m-mmk :i
.
3
Sr. Dr.1. -ri: ;e;
... <**'" ii
3
'Iv
S
A-
■fi!
?
•i'
.i.
V-
i. s*
f?i
I
14
■
f 8. Having noted the glaring omissions above; the chargesheet, penalty order and the appellate orders'are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass an order in accordance with law.
•■ 3 The O.A. thus.stands disposed of. No costs.
/ y * :
H.
\
IJ
X
(Bidisha Banerjee)
■.
Dr. Nandita Chatterjee)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sb
t%
'¥
\
i
'I?
I
I'
■
1v
!.5-
i
!
4
t
!?*
3
■!?
jji
•i
¥
a.
.•i'1
s.
:■
I
■ jl