Pribin C P vs SOUTHERN RAILWAY on 29 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicants who are Track Maintainers under the Southern Railway of Trivandrum Division challenges Annexures A3 series of penalty advice, Annexures A5 series of orders by which the individual appeals filed by them challenging penalty advices were rejected and Annexures A7 series of orders by which the revisions filed by them were rejected by the revisional authority.

2. The applicants joined the service under the respondents as Track Maintainers. While so, they were served with Annexures A1 series of identical charge memos dated 27.7.2018 alleging that each of the applicants interfered and obstructed the introduction of night patrolling with support men, and later obstructed night patrolmen from performing their duty without support person, and thereby were instrumental in disruption of train operation between SRTL – MAKM (Cherthalla – Mararikkulam). The applicants denied the charges and submitted Annexures A2 series of replies, contending that they had not caused any obstruction to the night patrol duty to be performed. They denied the charges and submitted their explanation. It was not stated in Annexure A1 series of memos, the basis of the memo of charges and no document was referred or cited in Annexures A1 memos. It also did not state what prompted the respondents to issue memo of charges. Some of the applicants are office bearers of recognized Union and according to them memo of charges were issued to them to quell the anger brewing up among some track maintainers against deputing the contract labouers for night patrolling duty. The applicants had not obstructed night patrolling duty as alleged.

3. The disciplinary authority rejected their replies by Annexures A3 series of orders. According to the applicant it was rejected despite the disputed question of fact involved and without conducting any inquiry and in a biased manner, imposed punishment of withholding of one annual increment for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect by Annexures A3 series of orders. Annexures A3 series of orders were issued without considering the fact that it involved highly disputed question of facts. Annexures A3 series of punishment order was highly arbitrary and without any application of mind and the same was not in accordance with Rule 10(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

4. Aggrieved by the above orders applicants submitted appeals to the 4th respondent as provided under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Annexures A4 series were the copies of the appeals. All the appeals were rejected by Annexures A5 series orders. According to the applicants, the appellate orders were not in conformity with Rule 22 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. In the appellate order the appellate authority referred to a report said to have been given by SSE/PW/STRL, copies of which were not furnished to the applicants.

5. Applicants submitted revisions as provided under the Rules. The copies of the revision petitions are produced as Annexures A6 series. All the revisions were rejected by Annexure A7 series orders. According to the applicants, the revisional authority also did not apply the mind while passing the order and were not in conformity with Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

6. Regarding the incident involved a criminal case was registered at the instance of the Railway Protection Force under Section 145(b), 146, 154 and 174(c) of the Railways Act. The case was registered as CC No. 79 of 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The learned Magistrate after trial acquitted all the accused by Annexure A8 order. In view of Annexure A8 judgment, the applicants contend that the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed in appeal and revision were without of any consequence. Accordingly, invoking Rule 25(A) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 reviews were filed as Annexure A9 series.

7. Contending that the decisions arrived at by the authorities were absolutely irregular, without proper application of mind and without giving an effective opportunity to the applicants, the OA has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A3 to A3(g), A5 to A5(g) and Annexure A7 to A7(g) and to quash the same with all consequential benefits.

ii) Direct the respondents to disburse the increment withheld from the applicants in pursuant to the impugned orders.

iii) Direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure A9 to A9(g) review petitions submitted by the applicants under Rule 25 A of The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.”

8. Respondents appeared and filed a reply statement denying the various allegations. It was stated that the applicants were Track Maintainers in Alleppey section. During monsoon season, in order to detect the damages to the track, night patrolling was introduced in the tracks between Cherthalla and Mararikkulam stations. Various beats were assigned to the track maintainers for patrolling. Due to scarcity of work force, additional men from agency were also arranged as support to the night patrolling staff. On 18.7.2018 the applicants became instrumental in disruption of rail traffic by obstruction of night patrolling duty. On that day, the Railway employees who were required to attend the duty did not report claiming themselves to be sick. They obstructed the contract labourers engaged by the agency. The letter advised to the Senior Divisional Engineer by Senior Section Engineer, Cherthalla who was available at station clearly mentions the names of the applicants who were responsible for obstructing Railway works and caused detention of trains. It was alleged that the applicants at about 17.45 hours agitated and interfered and obstructed with the arrangement of support men from the agency for the night patrolling duty. A copy of the report of the supervisor dated 19.7.2018 was produced as Annexure R1.

9. The interruption caused by the applicants led to non-availability of sufficient staff for night patrolling on 18.7.2018. This led to disruption of train services and in-convenience to thousands of passengers. Hence, the respondents were compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicants.

10. The impugned orders were absolutely proper and made in accordance with service Rules applicable to the applicants. Review Applications filed under Rule 25 A of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 was under consideration.

11. It was alleged that the applicants had organized protest and were active participants thereof. Their actions had serious repercussions for safety of trains and travelling passengers. In Annexure A1, a statement of allegations was also enclosed which contained the detailed description of the misconduct on the part of the applicants on clear point wise basis, on which the charges were framed. The applicants had also given their explanations. The contention that no inquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority was wrong and based on a wrong understanding of the service Rules. A minor penalty proceeding was initiated and consequently under Rule 11 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, there was no provision for conducting any inquiry. Grounds for conducting an inquiry was also not made out. Applicants have failed to give any satisfactory reason to drop the charges. The disciplinary authority had objectively considered their explanations and arrived at proper conclusions. Hence, it was contended that the prayers sought in the Original Application were not sustainable and were liable to be rejected.

12. Heard both sides and examined the records.

13. The applicant assailed the impugned orders on three different specific grounds. It was contended that the issue involved as revealed from Annexures A1 series of charge sheet was a disputed question of fact which ought to have been established by necessary materials on record.

There was no material to establish the allegations. It was secondly contended that being a disputed question of fact, the authority was bound to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under Rule 11(1)(b) of Part IV of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Hence, the penalty imposed on the applicant, though even a minor penalty, is not legally sustainable. It was thirdly contended that the inquiry was initiated pursuant to a report given by the authority which is now produced along with the reply statement as Annexure R1. The copy of the said document which formed the basis of allegations in Annexures A1 series was not furnished to the applicants and to that extent the disciplinary proceeding without furnishing the relevant document was bad and hence, liable to be interfered with.

14. Definitely, the nature of allegation is revealed from Annexures A1 series. The statement of imputation of charges enclosed along with Annexures A1 series indicates that on 18.7.2018 it was decided by the administration to provide round the clock stationary watchman at EAK 31 bridge and other river bridges mentioned therein. It was stated that it was further decided to extend the monsoon patrolling from Mararikkulam towards Alleppey. Due to emergent situation, it was decided to take out the departmental support persons from the beats of Cherthalla and Mararikkulam to man other location. Four people from agency were arranged to support the night patrolling men. However, on 18.7.2018 at about 17.45 hours, each of the applicant interfered and obstructed the introduction of night patrolling with support men. Later they obstructed night patrolmen from performing their duty without support person. Thus, they interrupted Railway working.

15. Evidently, the allegation is based on facts. The basic question is whether the applicants have committed the said act of obstructing the night patrolling with support men. There is also no dispute that when disputed questions of fact arise, it would be in the interest of justice to conduct a factual inquiry notwithstanding the fact that minor penalty proceedings were initiated. The authority is also competent to order such an inquiry under the Rules.

16. In this regard to decide whether any disputed question of fact was involved, it is essential to peruse the identical replies given by the applicants, evidenced by Annexures A2 series of replies. In Annexures A2 series of replies, common contentions have been set up by all except by two persons, one T.S. Ajayan and Bijeesh P. All have specifically stated in their replies that on 18.7.2018 their Union had a mass contact programme and they had participated in that meeting. They reached Cherthalla at about 17.30 hours. At that time, there was some arguments going on between SSE/PWAY/SRTL and a group of activists. The applicant enquired about this and it was known that they were protesting about the move to send contract labourers for night patrolling. The reply given by them also indicate that there were protest against the engaging of contract employees. The presence of the applicants at the place of occurrence, and the happening of an untoward incident there is not disputed. However, it is specifically stated therein that each of the applicant, who was engaged in different beats had assembled at their place of incident during the relevant time and some issues had arisen thereon. Evidently, in the replies itself they have factually admitted the main aspect of the allegation. In the above circumstances, in the nature of the replies given there was no scope for any further inquiry.

17. In the light of the above finding that the applicants had virtually admitted the substantial part of the incident including the presence at the spot at the relevant time and that certain untoward incident had happened though they have denied their role in it, it goes a long way in establishing the guilt of the applicants. Hence, the contention that there is no material to establish their guilt/misconduct is also not sustainable.

18. It is true that the genesis of the disciplinary proceeding was Annexure R1 issued by the concerned officer at the station. It is also an admitted fact that Annexure R1 was not enclosed with the statement of imputations. Definitely the applicants did not have the advantage of perusing it also. However, though the document ought to have been referred to or copy given to the applicants, the nature of the reply clearly indicates that in the light of the admissions made therein, non-service of Annexure R1 has not in any manner prejudiced the applicants. In other words, in the light of the admissions made on the substantial facts which formed the basis of the allegations, the non-supply of Annexure R1 is immaterial.

19. Having arrived at the above conclusion we find no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed which appears to be reasonable in the nature of the allegations raised against them. The Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(V. RAMA MATHEW)

(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “SA”

Original Application No. 180/00301/2025

APPLICANTS’ ANNEXURES Annexure A1: True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the first applicant Annexure A1(a): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the second applicant Annexure A1(b): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the third applicant Annexure A1(c): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the fourth applicant Annexure A1(d): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the fifth applicant Annexure A1(e): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the sixth applicant Annexure A1(f): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the seventh applicant Annexure A1(g): True copy the memo of charges bearing No. D5/ALLP/MKM dated 27.07.2018 by the fifth respondent to the 8th applicant. Annexure A2: True copy of the objection dated 06.08.18 submitted by the 2nd applicant Annexure A2(a): True copy of the objection dated 06.08.18 submitted by the 3rd applicant Annexure A2(b): True copy of the objection dated 07.08.18 submitted by the 5th applicant

Annexure A2(c): True copy of the objection dated 07.08.18 submitted by the 6th applicant Annexure A2(d): True copy of the objection dated nill submitted by the 7th applicant Annexure A2(e): True copy of the objection dated 06.08.18 submitted by the 8th applicant. Annexure A3: True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/P.C.P dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the first applicant. Annexure A3(a): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/A.K.S dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the second applicant. Annexure A3(b): Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/A.T.P dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the 3rd applicant. Annexure A3(c): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/P,B,D dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the 4th applicant. Annexure A3(d): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/M.R. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the 5th applicant. Annexure A3(e): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/A.T.S. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the 6th applicant Annexure A3(f): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/B.P. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the 7th applicant. Annexure A3(G): True copy of Penalty Advice bearing No.D5/ALLP/S.C.S. dated 21.01.2019 issued by the 5th respondent to the 8th applicant. Annexure A4: True copy of the appeal dated 02.02.19 submitted by the 2nd applicant.

Annexure A4(a): True copy of the appeal dated 06.02.19 submitted by the 3rd applicant. Annexure A4(b) : True copy of the appeal dated nil submitted by the 4th applicant. Annexure A4(c) : True copy of the appeal dated 28.02.19 submitted by the 5th applicant. Annexure A4(d) : True copy of the appeal dated 04.07.19 submitted by the 6th applicant. Annexure A4(e) : True copy of the appeal dated nil submitted by the 7th applicant. Annexure A4(f) : True copy of the appeal dated 02.02.19 submitted by the 8th applicant. Annexure A5: True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/26 Engg dated 29.06.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the first applicant. Annexure A5(a): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/24 Engg dated 29.06.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the second applicant. Annexure A5(b) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/22 Engg dated 29.06.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the third applicant. Annexure A5(c): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/99 Engg dated 30.09.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the 4th applicant. Annexure A5(d) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/93 Engg dated 09.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th applicant. Annexure A5(e) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/92 Engg dated 09.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the 6th applicant. Annexure A5(f): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/91 Engg dated 11.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the 7th applicant.

Annexure A5(g): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/23 Engg dated 29.06.2019 issued by the 4th respondent to the 8th applicant. Annexure A6: True copy of the revision petition dated 07.09.19 submitted by the 2nd applicant. Annexure A6(a): True copy of the revision petition dated 05.09.19 submitted by the 3rd applicant. Annexure A6(b) : True copy of the revision petition dated 05.09.19 submitted by the 4th applicant. Annexure A6(c) : True copy of the revision petition dated 18.11.19 submitted by the 5th applicant. Annexure A6(d) : True copy of the revision petition dated 22.11.19 submitted by the 6th applicant. Annexure A6(e) : True copy of the revision petition dated 22.11.2019 submitted by the 7th applicant. Annexure A6(f) : True copy of the revision petition dated 05.09.19 submitted by the 8th applicant. Annexure A7: True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/26 Engg dated nil issued by the 3rd respondent to the first applicant. Annexure A7(a): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/24 Engg dated 01.02.2020 issued by the 4th respondent to the second applicant. Annexure A7(b) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/22 Engg dated 20.01.20 issued by the 4th respondent to the third applicant. Annexure A7(c): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/99 Engg dated 20.01.20 issued by the 4th respondent to the 4th applicant Annexure A7(d) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/93 Engg dated 20.01.20 issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th applicant Annexure A7(e) : True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/92 Engg dated 14.01.20 issued by the 4th respondent to the 6th applicant. Annexure A7(f): True copy of Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/91 Engg dated 20.01.20 issued by the 4th respondent to the 7th applicant. Annexure A7(g): True copy of the Order No.V/P 227/A/2019/23 Engg dated 14.01.20 issued by the 4th respondent to the 8th applicant Annexure A8: True copy of the judgment dated 26.11.2021 in CC No.79 of 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. Annexure A9: True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) to the dated 26.01.22 submitted by the first applicant. Annexure A9(a) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) to the dated 27.01.22 submitted by the second applicant. Annexure A9(b): True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) to the dated 27.01.22 submitted by the third applicant. Annexure A9(c) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) to the dated 18.02.22 submitted by the 4th applicant. Annexure A9(d) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) to the dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 5th applicant. Annexure A9(e) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 6th applicant. Annexure A9(f) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 7th applicant. Annexure A9(g) : True copy of the review petition under section 25(A) dated 27.01.22 submitted by the 8th applicant.

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES

Annexure R1: True copy of the report dated 19.7.2018.

Annexure R2: True copy of the letter dated 6.6.2024.

Annexure R3: True copy of the Railway Board letter No. E9D&A)81AE6-6 dated 30.8.1984.

Annexure R4: True copy of the Appendix II of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-