Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this writ petition, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.72 of 2005 dated 15-2-2005, and the proceedings of the Railway Board dated 24-9-2002, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 17-3-2004, are sought to be quashed.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a post graduate in Engineering (Structures) from Punjab University, consequent upon his selection by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at the Combined Engineering Services Examination, came to be appointed to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers in 1988 and was promoted to the Junior Administrative Cadre in the month of January, 1999. He was confirmed in the said cadre during April 2004 along with the 1992 batch of IRSE officers. He was superseded by his 1988 batchmates and his juniors from the 1989, 1990 and 1991 batches, in view of the impugned order of punishment. While working as a Divisional Engineer, (gauge conversion), Hubli, Karnataka State, in the year 1995, a stretch of 90 kilometres of existing meter gauge, between Hubli-Londa railway stations, was taken up for conversion into broad gauge. Railway traffic had to be stopped in the section and since the broad gauge conversion was sought to be achieved in record time, efforts were made by the railway administration, to achieve the said object, by attending to the works simultaneously from both ends. The petitioner, as a Divisional Engineer, is said to have regularly camped at the site attending to various duties being performed almost round the clock. The entire work is said to have been broken into 19 reaches and important works entrusted to qualified and competent engineering contractors, whose work and performance was monitored and supervised and guided by a team of railway officials including the petitioner. Petitioner would submit that gauge conversion work was completed in a record time of 30 days and this achievement was appreciated in all quarters. On suspicion that the local railway administration had paid various contractors monies, in excess of their entitlement, the Vigilance branch of the South Central Railway asked the petitioner on 14-6-1996 to explain four items. The petitioner is said to have drawn up a detailed note in reply thereto on 6-7-1996. Not being satisfied, a memorandum of charge was drawn by the General Manager, South Central Railway, vide proceedings dated 25-6-1996. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under:

ARTICLE-I:
Shri Narinder Kumar, Dy.CE/C/Hubli, while working as Divisional Engineer/Gauge Conversion/Hubli, had committed grave misconduct, in that he certified bills for payment for item NS/11 in bills-CC/III for Reach IX, CC/II for Reach XIII, CC/II for Reach XIV, CC/II for XVI and CC/1 for Reach XIX of track linking contracts for Hubli-Londa section, without actual execution of work. Shri Narinder Kumar, therefore, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thus, violated Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

3. The imputations of charge were detailed in Annexure-II to the charge memo. Four documents were listed in Annexure-III as the basis and supporting evidence for sustaining the charges. No witnesses were cited to establish the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the charges. The General Manager appointed Sri C.N. Sastry, a former Chief Mechanical Engineer of the South Central Railway, as the enquiry officer. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings which were held on various dates and places including at Hubli. While the prosecution did not examine any witnesses, the petitioner examined 11 witnesses in his defence, all of whom belonged to the Civil Engineering Department of the South Central Railway and had attended works connected with broad gauge conversion carried out between Hubli-Londa sections. The petitioner filed several documents. Several records were summoned and marked on behalf of the defence. The enquiry officer finalized his report and recorded a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the allegations levelled against him. The enquiry officer held that the executing team, attending the broad gauge conversion work, at Hubli-Londa, had thoroughly complied with the safety standards and norms prescribed in various railway manuals and circulars and that the executing team was not guilty of misdemeanour.

6. In the counter affidavit filed, on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 to 5, by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (G), South Central Railway, it is stated that for the purpose of gauge conversion work on Hubli-Londa Section, tender notification was issued, that the work was entrusted to contractors during the year 1995, and that the petitioner, as a Divisional Engineer (Gauge Conversion), Hubli, was in charge of track linking contracts in connection with gauge conversion works in the Hubli-Londa Section. Respondents would contend that it came to their notice about the certification and release of payments to the contractors without any work being executed or measured, though the petitioner was obligated to check and justify payment. Charges were framed, vide charge memo dated 15-6-1998, in terms of Rule 8(2) read with Rule 2C(ii) and Schedule III (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968. On the petitioner denying the charges, enquiry was ordered and after an elaborate enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 4-8-1999. It is stated that the then General Manager, as disciplinary authority, after going through the enquiry report, felt that the findings in the enquiry report were not consistent with the evidence on record and that certification for payments to the contractors was issued without works being executed and mandatory checks, as required under the administrative instructions, being carried out. The General Manager is said to have issued the memorandum of disagreement enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. It is stated that the petitioner's representation thereto on 29-6-2000 was duly considered by the General Manager and an opportunity of personal hearing, as sought by the petitioner, was granted and at that stage the matter was forwarded to the Railway Board, which is competent to impose any of the penalties under Sub-clause (i) to (vi) of Rule 6, in terms of Item 1 of Schedule III of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, since the General Manager, as the disciplinary authority, was empowered to impose only minor penalties under Clauses (i), (iii), (iii-a) (iii-b) and (iv) of Rule 6. It is stated that the Railway Board, after going through the entire records including the disagreement memo of the General Manager and the representations made thereto by the petitioner, imposed on him the penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect and this order was communicated, vide proceedings dated 24-9-2002, by the Joint Secretary, who is competent to communicate orders of the Railway Board in terms of Rule 26-A of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. It is stated that, after careful consideration of the entire matter, the petitioner's appeal was rejected, that the same was communicated to the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 17-3-2004, by the Joint Secretary, competent to communicate the orders of the President in terms of Rule 26-A of the Rules.