Case details

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal · Hyderabad Bench
Decided: 6 October 2026
Case number: O.A./635/2020
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Central Administrative Tribunal

P CHAKRAPANI vs M/o Railways on 6 October 2026

Cites 2, Cited by 0

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

OA.No.021/635/2020

ORDER RESERVED ON : 02.09.2026

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Between:

P.Chakrapani, (Group 'C')

S/o Siddiramulu, aged 47 years,

Sr.Assistant Loco Pilot, Kazipet,

Secunderabad Division,

House No: 13-169, Madhusudhan Nagar,

Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD-500047.

...Applicant

(By Advocate Mr.G.Trinadha Rao)

AND

1. Union of India Represented by

the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, 3rd Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025

2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500 025.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad-500 025.

4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer(TRSO), Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad-500 025.

5. Mr. Ch. Peraiah, Inquiry Officer & Chief Loco Inspector, Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, C/o Kazipet Crew Lobby, Kazipet Railway Station, Warangal District.

….Respondents

(By Advocate Mrs.N.Naga Prashanthi, Sr.PC for CG)

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief: “To call for records including the charge memorandum, Inquiry report relating to and connected with the Disciplinary proceedings, the penalty order of removal from service issued in order No CE.37/TRS/3/SF-V/05/07/17 dated 02.11.2017 by Disciplinary Authority, order issued in NO CE.37/TRS/3/SF-V/05/07/17 dated 06.02.2019 by the Appellate Authority confirming the penalty of removal by disciplinary Authority and the order issued in No SCR/P- HQ/425(a)/DAR/LR6/SC/PCP/37/2019 dated 21.10.2019 by the Revising Authority modifying the punishment of Removal from service to that of reduction to the post of Sr.ALP in Level- 4(Rs.5200-20200) in GP Rs.2400 with pay of Rs. 25,500/- for a period of 5 (five Years) with cumulative effect and declare and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to restore the applicant to the post of LP(Goods) GP Rs.4200 as if no punishment was imposed and extend all the consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances and interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that while he was working as Loco Pilot(Goods), Kazipet Depot, Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, a major Penalty charge memorandum was issued by the Respondent No 4, the Disciplinary Authority, vide proceedings No. CE.37/TRS/3/SF-V/05/07/17, dated 20.7.2017, framing the following Articles of charge framed against him, which is reproduced as under: "That the said Sri P. Chakrapani, Loco Pilot(Goods) /KZJ Depot/SC Division, while working coupled light engines C/LE 31553 + 31488/WAG 9/KYN on 21.6.2017 between RDM Yard and GOSG siding while he was manning trailing Loco No. 31488/KYN. The C/Les have entered GDK siding instead of GOSG siding and collided in rear with stationery Goods

Location:

train Z-142 resulting in instant death of the Guard of the Goods Train. During the above movement of C/LE he has failed

i) to ensure coupling of the BP hoses between the Locomotive and keeping his loco in banking mode while starting from RDM yard.

ii) to ensure BP Pressure continuity of the trains i.e C/LES.

iii) to stop the C/LEs at the two unmanned LC gates at KM 1/20-21 and Km2/7-8.

iv) to stop the C/LEs at point No 101, diverging point leading to GOSG/GDK sidings through the leading loco Loco pilot trying to stop the C/LES, entered GDK siding instead of GOSG siding and pushed the leading loco with speed rising suddenly from 22 kmph to 55 Kmph resulting in collision with stationary Goods train and instant death of the Guard of Train No Z-142."

3. The applicant has submitted that the said Charge Memorandum, Articles of charge and the statement of imputations in support of the charges of the charge memorandum, are identically worded and materially same contrary to Railway Board's instructions issued in letter No. E(D&A) 66 RG-6/7, dated 30.12.1968, and the letter No. E(D & A) 68 RG 6-37, dated 23.09.1968, rendering the charge sheet not valid in law vitiating the entire DAR proceedings.

4. The applicant has further submitted that he had denied the charges. The Inquiry Officer, the 5th respondent herein, having been appointed, had proceeded with the inquiry in most biased manner contrary to the principles of natural justice. Despite the objections raised by him before commencement of the inquiry for taking on record exhibits P-1 to P-2, statement of witnesses in the absence of date of recording and the official, who had recorded, Exhibit P-5,

Location:

the caution order in the absence of train number and date, and Exhibit P-4, the speedometer data in the absence of any authentication during the course of inquiry, were taken on record by the Inquiry Officer brushing aside the objection without any valid reasons contrary to law. Since the statement of Sri Awdeshkumar and Sri Kishore Kumar, being interested witnesses involved in the very same incident, is not legally acceptable evidence, particularly, in the absence of any corroboration, he attended the inquiry under protest. Although he reserved his right to request for defence documents at appropriate time, the Inquiry Officer has not extended the opportunity to produce defence witness/documents contrary to rules and proceeded to further stage of inquiry in arbitrary manner. After recording the statement of defence under Rule 9 (19), when he stated that he did not want himself to be examined as a witness in his own case, the Inquiry Officer had forced the inquiry to skip the stage envisaged under Rule 9 (20) i.e., the production of defence witnesses/documents, and entered straight into general examination under Rule 9 (21) denying reasonable opportunity, his right to produce defence witness/documents, contrary to the rules and principles of natural justice

5. The applicant has further submitted that in the absence of the Presenting Officer having been appointed, the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor playing the role of Presenting Officer leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case to somehow establish the charges vitiating the inquiry. The Inquiry officer, without application of mind, mechanically recorded finding that the charges are proved. The entire inquiry report is not reasoned one, without application of mind. The findings of Inquiry Officer are not specific to the

Location:

charges, to the point and are perverse. The conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer are not based on correct assessment and objective analysis of evidence and has imported his personal knowledge into his findings contrary to law. The evidence does not disclose any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged employee by cogent reasons in the Inquiry report.

6. The applicant has further submitted that against the Inquiry Officer’s report, he had submitted his representation in the proceedings dated 17.10.2017 to the Respondent no 4, the Disciplinary Authority, inter alia submitting that the charge memorandum is untenable in view of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had not affixed his signature below each annexure, as required under the rules, the relied upon documents were selectively taken on record without any valid and cogent reasons/ruling against the objection raised by the Defence Counsel, reliance was placed on the document not taken on record and that the Speedometer data of Loco No. 31488, was taken on record without there being any authentication for the same. The Inquiry Officer’s findings are not based on the objective analysis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry in regard to the each articles of charge and in fact, the entire inquiry proceedings and report are not reasoned one and the findings are based on no evidence, perverse and that Inquiry Officer failed to establish nexus between the charge and the evidence on record for coming to conclusions. Further, the Inquiry officer selectively taken on record only 4 documents of his choice out of 6 listed documents at Annexure-III. In fact, the DDS report of Loco No.31448, which was one of the listed, relied upon documents under Annexure III, has been conveniently omitted, which disproves that the trailing loco is in banking mode,

Location:

which impeaches the credibility of the charge framed in that aspect. Thus, the entire case against the applicant was based on the unfounded suspicion that the rear loco, which manned, had pushed the leading loco resulting in accident contrary to the settled position of law that mere suspicion should not be allowed to take place of evidence. Thus, the finding of the Inquiry officer is perverse.

7. The applicant has further submitted that the Respondent No. 4 herein, the Disciplinary authority, in the final order of removing him from service, in proceedings No CE.37/TRS/3/SF-V/05/07/17, dated 2.11.2017, did not indicate any reference and discussion to the points raised in the written brief dated 28.9.2017, many of the grounds raised by him in his representation dated 17.10.2017, have been totally ignored and have not been considered and the order did not contain anything as to what charges against him have been established. Thus, the entire order of the Disciplinary authority is with non- application of mind and not reasoned one and is arbitrary, unjust, perverse, not based on evidence on record and is abuse of his powers as a quasi judicial authority. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty of removal issued by the respondent No 4, he had submitted an appeal dated 12.12.2017 to the Appellate Authority, the Respondent No. 3, categorically bringing out various points, which have been omitted by the Disciplinary Authority, the biased approach adopted by the Inquiry Officer acting as Presenting Officer and the manner in which he was denied of reasonable opportunity, serious procedural lapses, which caused prejudice to him in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Even the Appellate Authority, after a lapse of more than one year from the date of submission of appeal, by his order issued in proceedings No CE.37/TRS/3/SF-

Location:

V/05/07/17, dated 6.2.2019, without referring to the various points raised by him in his appeal, without determining whether the documents objected to by him are legally admissable in evidence, whether in the absence of Presenting Officer, the inquiry is vitiated or not in a most mechanical way confirmed the penalty of removal by Disciplinary Authority. The Rule SR 4.32, relied upon, is not applicable to the case of the applicant. The Appellate Authority, without reference to any evidence on record in regard to the charges leveled him, had recorded that the charges are proved in DAR. The Appellant authority did not make any objective assessment of the evidence. Feeling aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Appellate Authority, he had submitted his Revision Petition dated 25.3.2019 categorically bringing out the various grounds raised before the Appellate Authority quoting various judicial pronouncements and the manner in which conclusions were drawn by the Appellate Authority contrary to law. Even the Revising Authority, in the proceedings No SCR/P.HQ/425(a)DAR/LR6/SC/PCP/37/2019, dated 21.10.2019, issued by him, without referring to and considering the various points raised by him in his appeal, without any regard to the objective analysis and evidence on record, placed reliance on the report of the SAG level committee, which is not the part of the DAR proceedings contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, on humanitarian grounds of family condition and his dependent children, modified the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ to that of the ‘reinstatement to the post of Sr.ALP in Level 4 (Rs5200-20200) in GP 2400 with pay of Rs.25500/- for a period of 5 (five) years with cumulative effect. Thus, the entire proceedings of right from issuance of charge memorandum are vitiated by gross violation of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity,

Location:

serious procedural lapses causing prejudice to the applicant and the inquiry is vitiated by bias on the part of the Inquiry Officer acting as Presenting Officer /prosecutor. The penalty orders of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revising authority are contrary to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, unjust and based on no evidence. There is no evidence in them to show application of mind to the grounds raised by the applicant in his written brief and representation. Objective consideration of the grounds raised by the applicant and giving reason for the decision arrived at by them are required under Rule 22 (2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The concerned authorities have breached the principles of natural justice and violated the Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, by not considering the points of the applicant with due application of mind.

8. The applicant has further submitted that the Inquiry Officer at the closure of case has not questioned the applicant on the circumstances appearing against him to afford an opportunity to the applicant to explain the circumstances appearing against him to defend his case, and thus, violated the mandatory requirement of sub rule (21) of Rule 9. Though the Inquiry Officer had drawn attention of the applicant to five questions posed to the witnesses, the Inquiry Officer, in the Inquiry Report, had placed reliance on 13 answers to questions to hold the charges as "proved", thus denying a reasonable opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against the applicant. Thus, entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated for non compliance of the said Rules as per the law. In as much as the Inquiry Officer at the closure of case has not questioned

Location:

the applicant on the circumstances appearing against him to afford an opportunity to the applicant to explain the circumstances appearing against him to defend his case in compliance with the mandatory requirement of sub rule

(21) of Rule 9, the entire inquiry proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of the said Rules as per the law laid down in CA No. 1729/2008 (Moni Shankar Vs. UOI & Another decided on 04.03.2008. The action of the Inquiry officer in selectively choosing the RUDs and taking on file only few of them, is contrary law and Railway Board's letters No. E(D&A)70 RG 6-14 dated 15.1.71 and E(D&A)80 RG 6-47 dated 25.5.81 which stipulate that "All the documents listed in the charge memorandum have to be taken on record and clearly marked as Exhibits and signed by the Inquiry Officer" and therefore not taking all the listed documents vitiate the entire Inquiry proceedings. The action of the 5th respondent in not providing an opportunity for the defence witnesses and /documents is contrary to principles of natural justice vitiating the inquiry proceedings.

9. The applicant has further contended that the entire proceedings are influenced and prejudiced by "Fly Leaf No. 07/2017", which was released much ahead (published in July 2017 and emailed to KZJ Depot on 28.07.2017) of the commencement of the DAR inquiry prejudging the issue holding the applicant responsible observing that Sri P.Chakrapani, LP/Goods/KZJ & Sri Awdhesh Kumar ALP/KZJ of trailing loco of coupled engines....., he continued to push the coupled locos and increased the speed suddenly.

Location:

10. The applicant has further contended that the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings is contrary to facts and law, as the entire inquiry proceedings and the consequential Inquiry report are based on extraneous factors and the findings of the inquiry officer are based on no evidence on record and the evidence adduced has no nexus between the alleged misconduct of the applicant by cogent reasons and are perverse, the inquiry proceedings including the Inquiry Report are liable to be quashed.

11. The applicant has, therefore, contended that inasmuch as the Articles of charge (Annexure-1) and the statement of imputations in support of the charges (Annexure-II) of the charge memorandum are identically worded and materially same contrary to Railway Board's instructions issued in letter No E(D&A) 66 RG-6/7, dated 30.12.1968, and letter No. E(D & A) 68 RG 6-37, dated 23.9.1968, the very charge memorandum is not valid in law, which renders the entire DAR proceedings void. Hence, he has filed the present OA, seeking the above relief.

12. The respondents 1 to 5 have contested the OA by filing a reply statement. They have submitted that applicant while working coupled light engines 32553+31488/WAG9/KYN on 21.06.2017 between RDM yard and GOSG, was manning emailing loco No. 31488/KYN. The C/Les have entered GDK siding instead of GOSG siding collided in rear with stationary Goods train Z-142 resulting instant death of the Guard of the Goods Train. During the said movement the applicant has failed:

Location:

i) to ensure coupling of the BP hoses between the locomotive and keeping his loco in king mode while starting from RDM yard;

ii) to ensure BP pressure continuity of the trains i.e. C/Les;

iii) to stop the C/Les at the point 101, diverging point leading to GOSG/GDK siding tough the leading loco pilot trying to stop the C/Les, entered GDK siding instead of GOSG sing and pushed the leading loco with speed rising suddenly from 22 kmph to 55 kmph resulting in collision with stationary Goods train and instant death of the Guard of the train No. 2-

142.

13. The respondents have further submitted that for the said misconduct, a charge memorandum dated 20.07.2017, was served on the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority (DA), the 4th respondent herein, proposing to hold an inquiry against the applicant for the charges stated supra. Accordingly, an inquiry was conduct and the Inquiry Officer found the charges against the applicant as proved. A copy of the Inquiry Report was sent to the applicant on 03.10.2017, giving 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter to submit his explanation, if any. The applicant submitted his explanation on 17.10.2017. After carefully going through the imputation of charges and entire proceedings, held against the applicant, the DA imposed the penalty of "Removal from Service" with immediate effect, vide under dated 02.11.2017, duly giving an opportunity to file an appeal against the order to the Appellate Authority (AA), the 2nd respondent herein, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The applicant filed his appeal on 12.12.2017 to the AA. The AA ie., the 3rd respondent herein, after giving a personal hearing on 31.01.2019, by order dated 06.02.2019, observed that the charges against the applicant is fully

Location:

proved, and hence, the penalty of "Removal from Service", imposed by the DA on the applicant, shall holds goods. The applicant was also advised that under the Rule 25 of Railway Servant (D & A) Rules, 1968, a revision petition against the order lays to the Principal Chief Operating Manager, Secunderabad, the 7th respondent herein. The applicant submitted his revision petition on 25.03.2019. After going through the DAR case of the applicant and revision petition, submitted against the penalty of “Removal from Service" imposed by the DA by order dated 03.11.2017, and upheld by the AA by order 06.02.2019, the Revising Authority, after giving personal hearing on 13.09.2019, with a humanitarian approach including family condition and his dependent children, decided to modify the punishment of "Removal from Service" to that of "Reinstatement to the post of Sr.ALP in Level 4 (Rs. 5200-20200) in GP 2400 with pay of Rs. 25,500/- for a period of 5 (Five) years with cumulative effect" in the interest of justice.

14. The respondents have further submitted that it is on record that the Disciplinary Authority has not appointed Presenting Officer in this case. As per the instructions envisaged in Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, the appointment of Presenting Officer is not mandatory to present the case on behalf of Disciplinary Authority (DA), hence the inquiry officer concluded inquiry proceedings in this case. Moreover, the applicant not mentioned by which the Inquiry officer was prejudiced in this case. It is evident from the Inquiry report that the IO has evaluated evidence on record as well as defense brief submitted by the applicant. Further, it is on record that the subject charge memorandum enclosed as annexure I to IV and each page of annexure contains signature of DA. Thus, it is apparent that the DA has authenticated the contents of the

Location:

Annexure I to IV. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is not true. Further, it is submitted by the respondents that the IO has taken 4 listed documents against 6 listed documents as in Annexure-III, for which the applicant accepted during the inquiry. The listed document mentioned under serial numbers 5 & 6 are in one page. The listed document No. 3 was not taken on record during the inquiry for which the applicant also accepted. The main irregularity on the part of applicant was mentioned in the article of charge and it was proved during the inquiry in the IO's report, based on the evidence of record adduced during the course of inquiry vis-à-vis listed documents taken on record. Besides, the DA discussed in his speaking order all the contentions raised by the applicant with reference to the contents of Listed document No.3 (DDS report). Moreover, as per SPM data record (listed document), the coupled engines after start from RDM station are not stopped at two unmanned Level cross gates and also at diverging point No. 101 though it was mandatory to stop. The applicant, being Loco pilot working in the Loco No. 31488 (trailing loco), is also responsible to ensure stop at the above locations by applying emergency brakes from his loco No. 31488. The applicant could have alerted the leading loco pilot by 'whistle horn', as the provision of emergency brake apparatus and whistle is also functioning in his engine. The facility of brakes in trailing loco is available to stop the engines in case of failure of leading loco pilot. In this case, the applicant has not taken any initiative to stop at the above locations though the leading loco pilot not adhered to the instructions given in listed document No.5 & 6. Thus, according to the respondents, it is apparent that the applicant failed to alert and also failed to apply brakes from his working loco to avoid major accident.

Location:

15. The respondents have further contended that the DA's order dated 02.11.2017, is a speaking order by itself. Before issuing the order of Removal from Service, the DA has carefully considered all the relevant documents on record including the inquiry report and the representation of the applicant, and after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that the applicant’s slackness during the course of working coupled engines and failed to adhere to the instructions i.e., ensure of coupling of brake pipe hoses before start and also failure to ensure stop at the three locations after start from RDM station has resulted the accident. The applicant could have stopped the engines by applying the emergency brakes even after passing the intermediate locations i.e., TWO unmanned Level cross locations, where the leading loco pilot failed to stop. Thus, the availability of second crew in wailing engine was totally defeated. Therefore, both the loco pilots & Assistant loco pilots, in total FOUR front line staff, have failed to perform their duties causing rear collision with stationary goods train resulting death of goods Guard, who is innocent, in this case, & drenched his entire family & children into miserable condition. Further, it is on record that the applicant's Appeal was disposed by the AA with all reasonable opportunities available as per extant instructions i.e., personal hearing of the applicant. In RA's speaking order also, the role of applicant and his failure in the present case for violation of rule position was discussed and keeping in view the family and financial condition of the applicant, with a sympathetic consideration and on humanitarian ground, reinstated the applicant. Moreover, as per instructions under Rule No. SR 4.32 of General for Indian Railways, the Loco Pilots shall personally ensure that the coupling and the hose pipe connection between the engine and the train are properly connected. In this

Location:

case, while working of two engines, both the Loco pilots has not ensured coupling of brake hoses between two engines while starting from RDM station. (as per definition of Train-includes light engine(s)). Thus, the applicant has failed to comply the instructions specified in the General and Subsidiary Rules. Further, as per extant instructions (SR 3.84), the Loco pilot of the second engine shall, however, in case of emergency assist in stopping or reducing the speed of the train by applying automatic vacuum/airbrake or hand brake as may be required...' . In this case, the applicant failed to stop at three locations during the course of working from RDM station. The Inquiry Officer has given all the reasonable opportunities during the course of inquiry and discussed evidence on record with reference to the article of charge, mainly on the failure of the applicant. Even the DA & AA also recorded reasonable finding in their speaking order. It is also on record that the Inquiry Officer conducted 'general examination' i.e., based on the evidence on record and also given opportunity to submit 'defence brief. The applicant was also given opportunity by the DA & also IO during the course of inquiry for submission of defence witness/documents, all the applicant has not chosen any witnesses/documents. It is also apparent from the IO's report that the documentary evidence on record vis-à-vis oral evidence was discussed by the IO and given findings as 'Proved'. The fly leaf, if any, as contended by the applicant, was not on word and contents of it are not relied upon by the IO. From the above, according to the respondents, it is clear that the instructions, as envisaged under Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, are complied with in this case.

Location:

16. The respondents have, therefore, contended that there is no ground for the applicant so as to seek any relief from this Tribunal. Hence, they have prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA with costs.

17. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings on record.

18. In this OA, the applicant is seeking the relief to quash the Disciplinary Authority’s penalty order, the Appellate Authority’s appellate order along with revision order of the Revising Authority, by which the original order of penalty of removal from service has been reduced to reduction to the post of Sr.ALP in Level-4 (Rs.5200-20200) in GP Rs.2400 with pay of Rs. 25,500/- for a period of 5 (five Years) with cumulative effect.

19. The major penalty charge memo in Standard Form No.V, was issued to the applicant on 20.07.2017, and on denial of charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 10.09.2017. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the applicant on 03.10.2017. The applicant submitted his explanation on 17.10.2017, and after going through the imputation of charge and entire proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect on 02.11.2017. The applicant filed appeal on 12.12.2017, and the Appellate Authority in its order dated 06.02.2019, confirmed the penalty of removal from service as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant further filed revision petition on 25.03.2019, and the Revising Authority reduced the penalty of removal from

Location:

service to reinstatement to the post of Sr.ALP in Level-4 (Rs.5200-20200) in GP Rs.2400/- with pay of Rs. 25,500/- for a period of 5 (Five) years with cumulative effect.

20. In the appeal as well as revision petition, the applicant raised the issue of identical wordings of the charge sheet and the statement of imputations. The contention of the applicant is that the Article of charge and the statement of imputations in support of the charges being identical, therefore, are contrary to the Railway Board’s instructions issued in letter No.E(D&A)66 RG-6/7, dated 30.12.1968, and the letter No. E(D&A)68 RG-6-37, dated 23.09.1968. Thus, the charge sheet is not valid. The applicant has submitted that he has attended the inquiry under protest.

21. This Tribunal has observed that the Railway Board’s letter No.E(D&A) 68 RG 6-37, dated 23.09.1968, under Point 3 (b) has categorically mentioned that “the articles of charges and the statement of imputation in support of the articles of charges should not be identically worded. While the article of charge should be concise, the statement of imputation should contain details, references etc. relating to the charges and should generally give a clearer idea about the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged act of commission or omission. Specific rules/instructions which may have been violated by the charged official should also be mentioned in the statement of imputation”.

22. Identical means, exactly the same as; similar in every detail. It is noted by this Tribunal that in the memo dated 20.07.2017, the article of charge and

Location:

the statement of imputations as given in Annexure I & II, are not identical, as contended by the applicant. The article of charge is concise, as given in Annexure.I, whereas the statement of imputation of misconduct as given in Annexure-II, contains details of references etc., as required under the rule. The statement of imputations, as given, are in support of article of charges. Moreover, this point was not raised by the applicant in his representation dated 17.10.2017. In appeal, the applicant’s view is “Annexure I & II, are materially same. As discussed supra, as per rule, the article of charges and statement of imputations have to be same because of the content, the only difference is in their detailing.

23. The applicant filed appeal under Rule 18 (ii) of D&AR 1968, on 12.12.2017. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 06.02.2019, rejected the appeal. The applicant filed the revision petition on 25.03.2019, and the Revising Authority, in its order dated 21.10.2019, at Point No.9.0 observed that “All India Loco Running Staff Association met the undersigned on 3.9.19 and submitted a representation dated 29.8.19, which includes apart from other issues, this subject vide Para No.10 at Page No.5 and requested that “Therefore this association beseeches your kind intervention and reinstates the all above named employees into service at an earliest and do needful”. Further, in Point No.12.0, the Revising Authority mentions that “In the revision petition, CE has requested for personal hearing. Personal hearing was granted after two postponements due to administrative reasons and was heard on 13.9.19 (Friday) at 16.00 hrs in the chamber of the undersigned. He came along with his wife. They both narrated pathetic condition of the family including financial

Location:

problems. Elder daughter is in Inter 1st year and son studying 6th class. On hearing about removal from service, he stated that his father passed away in hospital and also he is also not able to convince his close relations and family about removal from service and thus facing lot of difficulties which are difficult to put in words. So he pleaded for taking humanitarian approach. Therefore looking from humanitarian ground, including family condition and his dependent children, it is decided to modify the punishment of Removal from Service to that of "reinstatement to the post of Sr.ALP in Level 4 (Rs.5200- 20200) in GP 2400 with pay of Rs.25,500/- for a period of 5(five) years with cumulative effect" (ie., the penalty will have effect on pay). The undersigned is sure that this will meet ends of justice”. Further at Point No.13.0, the Revising Authority observed that “The intervening period from date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement will be treated as Dies-non”. These observations prove the point that the reduction in penalty, as ordered by the Revising Authority, is not on any merit grounds, but, taken due to humanitarian approach clubbed with the request representation of the Association, in his own wisdom.

24. The applicant has further submitted that the Presenting Officer was not appointed and the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor playing the role of Presenting Officer as well, and this makes the enquiry report not reasoned and without application of mind. The applicant has also raised his objection to the point that the Disciplinary Authority had not affixed his signature below each Annexure, as required under the rules. As per rules in vogue, Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, it is not mandatory to appoint a Presenting Officer (PO).

Location:

The applicant was served major penalty charge memo as required under Rule 9

(6) & 9 (7) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. An opportunity was also given to the applicant (mentioned under Para No.3 & 4 of standard form No.V) to inspect listed documents for preparation of written statement of defense. The applicant was in receipt of the subject charge memorandum including documents listed under Annexure-III and then submitted written statement of defense, which was accepted by the applicant during the course of inquiry in answer to Q.Nos.2 & 3 on 10.09.2017. Moreover, during the course of inquiry, all reasonable opportunities were given to the applicant to defend on these documents/listed witnesses in the form of cross-examination. Applicant did not raise any objection of bias against the Inquiry Officer at any given point of time during the inquiry, but, raised the same in his appeal and this makes the objection null and void. The non- appointment of a PO, does not automatically invalidate the inquiry. The inquiry was conducted as per rules in vogue and sufficient and appropriate opportunity was given to the applicant to submit his defense and explanations etc.,. The signature of the Disciplinary Authority, on each and every page of annexure, is also available. The Revising Authority order already made the order of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities null and void. Therefore, the question of quashing the Disciplinary Authority order of removal as upheld by the Appellate Authority, does not arise. The Revising Authority order, as given, holds good on the ground that the inquiry report has proved all the charges.

25. As submitted by the respondents, the listed witnesses were present during the course of inquiry and confirmed their statements. Further, the applicant has

Location:

availed the opportunity of cross-examination of the listed witnesses & listed documents but could not elicit contrary to the article of charge. Moreover, the applicant was given an opportunity (reference para No. 4 of SF V) to submit written statement along with list of names of and addresses of the witnesses if any whom he wishes to call in support of his defense. Further, the inquiry officer has also given opportunity during inquiry. But, the applicant neither made any attempt nor requested to produce defense documents/witnesses during the inquiry proceedings, thus the question of recording the evidence on behalf of the applicant does not arise.

26. As presented, the applicant while working Coupled Light Engines C/LES 31553 + 31488/WAG 9/KYN, on 21.06.2017, between RDM Yard and GOSG siding, manning the C/LES, have entered GDK siding instead of GOSG siding and collided in rear with stationery Goods Train Z-142, resulting in instant death of the Guard of the Goods Train. The applicant had failed to ensure coupling of the BP hoses between the Locomotive and keeping his loco in banking mode while starting from RDM yard. He also did not ensure BP pressure continuity of the Trains i.e., C/LES. He did not stop the C/LES at Point No.101, diverging point leading to GOSG/GDK sidings through the leading loco. Loco Pilot trying to stop the C/LES, entered GDK siding instead of gOSG siding and pushed the leading loco with speed rising suddenly from 22 kmph to 55 kmph resulting in collision with stationary Goods Train and instant death of the Guard of Train No.Z-142.

Location:

27. The respondents have rightly submitted that “the applicant being Loco Pilot working in the Loco No. 31488 (trailing loco) is responsible to ensure stop at the above locations by applying emergency brakes from his loco No. 31488. The applicant could have alerted the leading loco pilot by 'whistle horn', as the provision of emergency brake apparatus and whistle is also functioning in his engine. The facility of brakes in ailing loco is available to stop the engines in case of failure of leading loco pilot. In this case, the applicant has not taken any initiative to stop at the above locations though the leading loco pilot not adhered to the instructions given in listed document No.5 & 6. It is to be noted that the lapses of the applicant have resulted in the death of an innocent colleague, the Guard of stationary Goods Train Z-142.

28. The SAG Level Committee nominated by the GM, also concluded that the incident took place as the rear loco is pushing the leading loco with increasing speed while the leading loco is being stopped. The Committee has opined (i) that this was due to non-coupling of hosepipes of the two locos, (ii) not ensuring air continuity and (iii) not putting the rear loco in banking mode. The Committee in its findings fixed the primary responsibility on Crew of both the Engines (A) LP & ALP of leading loco for not ensuring coupling of air hoses of both the locos and air continuity between the locos and (B) LP & ALP of rear loco for not ensuring coupling of air hoses of both the locos and air continuity between the locos and continued pushing due to which the speed had increased suddenly from 22 kmph to 55 kmph. The findings of the Committee were accepted by the GM.

Location:

29. The Tribunal has also observed that there were other employees viz., Sri Awdesh Kumar, Sri Boda Tirupathi and Sri T.Kishore Kumar, involved in this mishap, who also have been charged sheeted though separately and in each employee’s case, the Revising Authority has reduced the penalty order of removal from service to that of reduction in pay etc., like the applicant.

30. The learned counsel for the Applicant, in support of his contentions, has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (AIR 2018 SC 4860), dated 02.07.2018, in Civil Appeal No.2608/2012, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moni Shankar v. Union of India & Another (AIR 2008 SCW 2067), dated 04.03.2008 in Appeal (Civil) No.1729 of 2008, which is a trap case. The facts of the above judgments are different to the facts of the present case.

31. There is no doubt that the negligence of the applicant and his carelessness in following the rules/instructions in vogue resulted in the incident in which one man died. This is a serious case. The reply of the respondent is being reproduced here for a better understanding. “The applicant could have stopped the engines by applying the emergency brakes even after passing the intermediate locations i.e.. TWO unmanned Level cross locations, where the leading loco pilot failed to stop. Thus, the availability of second crew in trailing engine was totally defeated. Therefore, both the loco pilots & Assistant loco pilots, in total FOUR front line staff, have failed to perform their duties causing rear collision with stationary goods train resulting death of goods Guard, who is

Location:

innocent in this case & drenched his entire family& children into miserable condition.”

32. In the background of the death of an individual in the accident, the attempt of the applicant to take shelter under frivolous technical ground is not at all justified. All the charges have been proved in the inquiry. The applicant was given enough opportunity to present his case. This penalty of ‘Removal from service’ has been already reduced by the Revisionary Authority.

33. With these deliberations as above, the Tribunal finds no merit in the OA. Being devoid of merit, the OA is dismissed. All miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA)

(MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

/DSN/

Location: