TUMAR CHAND PRADHAN vs M/o Railways on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in imposing major penalty of removal from Railway Service and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by Appellate Authority in confirming the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To pass appropriate orders quashing the impugned order dtd. 19.02.2016 in Annexure A/4 as well as the order dtd. 27.04.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure A/6; and b) To pass such other order/orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this OA with cost.

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred statedby the applicant in the OA is as follows: 2.1 That the applicant was appointed as Goods Guard on 18.10.78 under the Sr.Divisional Operations Manager, South

Kalpeswar Behera

Eastern Railway, Bilaspur Railway Division.That thereafter, the applicant was promoted to the posts of Goods Guard 'C', Goods Guard 'B', Goods Guard 'A', Passenger Guard and Mail Guard.That while working as Mail Guard under the Station Manager, Chakradharpur Railway Division, the applicant was issued with a memorandum of charges dtd.22.12.15. The sole article of charge framed against the applicant is as follows:- "Article-1 That the said Sri T.C. Pradhan, while functioning as Mail Guard under SMR / CKP, has committed serious misconduct by absenting from his duty unauthorizedly i.e. from 16.11.2014 to 14.12.2015 without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from any competent Railway Authority and thus violated Rule 3.1 (ii) & (iii) of RS (Conduct) Rules, 1966". 2.2 That in response to the above memorandum of charges, the applicant submitted his defence statement on 31.12.15 stating therein that he had availed leave (LAP) from 10.11.14 to 15.11.14 and proceeded to his village due to illness of his wife, who was bed ridden due to suffering from cerebral hemorrhage. But unfortunately, he also fell ill due to suffering from Tubercular Pluvial disease for a long period. As none of his family members were staying in his native village excepting his bed ridden wife, no one could intimate the same to his in-charge about his absence. So, the applicant requested to exonerate him from the charges.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.3 That vide order dtd.23.1.16, an enquiry officer (Res.No.4) was appointed to enquire into the charges and the enquiry was conducted and completed on one and the same day i.e. on 28.1.16. The enquiry officer came to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the applicant were proved. That on the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority (Res.No.3) passed a speaking order dtd.19.2.16 in imposing punishment of removal from Railway service with 1/3rd pension andgratuity (both) which would have been admissible to him on retirement on superannuation of age as compassionate allowance. The punishment was effective from 26.2.16 i.e. the date of receipt of the said punishment order. 2.5 That being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal dtd.07.4.16 before the Appellate Authority (Res.No.2) stating therein that due to the illness of his wife as well as his own illness, he could not intimate his in-charge in time. But subsequently, on High Coufus recovery, he reported to his in- charge on 24.12.15 with medical certificates. Therefore, the applicant requested to consider his case sympathetically as the punishment was imposed on 26.2.16 i.e. just before 3 days of his retirement (29.2.16) and thereby lost all his service benefits for

Kalpeswar Behera his 35 years of long service period. That the Appellate Authority without considering the appeal of the applicant, passed an order dtd.27.4.16 confirming the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2.6 That the applicant respectfully submits that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in imposing punishment of removal from Railway service is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the sound principles of law and as such the same under annexure-A/4 is liable to be quashed. That the applicant respectfully submits that the inquiry was conducted by the IO in one sitting in which the IO put certain questions to the applicant and without examining any documents/medical certificates produced by the applicant relating to his illness/ sickness came to a wrong conclusion that the charge was proved as the applicant has accepted the charges and also tendered excuse for not providing information to SMR / CKP due to weak health, household problem and mental depression. Therefore, the inquiry report is vitiated in the eye of law and such the same under annexure-A/3 is liable to be quashed.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.7 That the applicant respectfully submits that the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is highly disproportionate to the charge leveled against the applicant as because the applicant has not remained absent intentionally or deliberately but due to unavoidable circumstance due to his sickness and no explanation whatsoever was issued to him for his unauthorized absence at any point of time. Therefore, the charge of unauthorized absent as has been alleged in the charge sheet is not proved rather the IO came to a wrong conclusion that charges were proved. 2.8 That the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the major penalty of removal from service should have taken into consideration the past service records of the applicant as the applicant has served the Railway department for a long period of 35 years without any adverse remarks against him. Therefore, the Disciplinary authority should have considered the circumstances for which the applicant could not intimate his absence to his in-charge and the same having not been done, the order of punishment in removing the applicant from his services three days before his retirement appears to be highly disproportionate to the gravity of charges.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.9 That the applicant respectfully submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is simply a mechanical one and without any application of mind. As it appears that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is without any reasons and beyond the materials on record and the said order under annexure-A/6 being a non-speaking order and cryptic one, is liable to be quashed.That the applicant respectfully submits that due to imposition of major penalty, he lost all his service benefits for 35 years of his service period and being the sole earning member of the family, it is much difficult on his part to maintain his family without having any other source of income and as a result of which he is unable to give proper treatment to his wife, who is bed ridden and the condition of the family has became distress. 2.10 That the applicant respectfully submits that although it was directed to pay 1/3rd of pension and gratuity (both) in the order of punishment itself, yet he has not been paid 1/3rd of the DCRG amount and also pension.That the applicant respectfully submits that in the interest of justice, equity and fair play the impugned order of punishment dtd.19.2.16 in annexure- A/4 as

Kalpeswar Behera well as the order dtd.27.4.16 passed by the Appellate Authority under annexure-A/6 be quashed.

3. The respondents have filed their counter stating as follows: 3.1 That the fact of the case is that the applicant Sri Tumar Chand Pradhan, Mail Guard, CKP was issued with a Major Penalty Charge sheet vide letter No.T.39/Mail Gd/CKP/M/T.C.P./15/2015 dated 22.12.2015 by the Disciplinary Authority and Sr. Divisional Operations Manager, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur for absenting from his duty unauthorizedly i.e. from 16.11.2014 to 14.12.2015 without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from any competent Railway Authority and thus violated Rule 3.1 (ii) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The applicant Sri. T.C. Pradhan has submitted reply/defence statement in connection with the above major penalty charge sheet vide letter dated 31.12.2015. The Disciplinary Authority and Sr. Divisional Operations Manager, S.E.Railway, Chakradharpur having not satisfied with the defence submitted by the applicant has appointed Sri. Awtar Singh Divisional Officers Manager (Chg.) Chakradharpur to conduct the enquiry to the charges framed against the applicant

Kalpeswar Behera

to give him natural justice as per Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968, vide SF

No. T.39/Mail Gd/Chakradharpur/M/T.C.P./15/2015 dated 23.01.2016. Accordingly, Sri. Awtar Singh Divisional Officers Manager (Chg.) Chakradharpur has conducted the enquiry observing D&A procedure and submitted his report which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and Sr. Divisional Operations Manager, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur and sent to the applicant for submission of his defence against the enquiry report. The applicant Sri .T.C. Pradhan instead of submitting explanation to the enquiry report he has requested the Disciplinary Authority begging an apology and to consider his case sympathetically vide his representation dated 04.02.2016. the Disciplinary Authority and Sr. Divisional S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur having gone through in charge sheet memorandum, explanation submitted by the applicant and the entire D&A processes including the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer Sri. Awtar Singh Divisional Operations Manager (Chg), S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur substantiating the charges leveled against the applicant has passed Notice of Imposition of the Punishment imposing the following punishment without any prejudice.

Kalpeswar Behera

You are hereby removed from Railway service with 1/3rd of pension and gratuity (both) which would have been admissible to you on retirement on superannuation of age as compassionate allowance." 2.2 Consequent upon issue of the above NIP a letter No. SER/P- CKP/ET/TCP/15/2016 dated 26.02.2016 was issued by Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer Chakradharpur for taking necessary action in arranging payment of admissible settlement dues.In the meanwhile, the applicant Sri. T.C. Pradhan has submitted his mercy appeal to Additional Divisional Railway Manager Chakradharpur to reduce/annul the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager Chakradharpur and Appellate Authority having gone through the entire D&A proceedings and mercy appeal submitted by the applicant has upheld the by the D&A inter-alia advising him to prefer appeal incase if he desired so to the Revising Authority i.e. Chief Operation Manager, S.E. Railway Garden Reach within 45 days against the punishment order. But the applicant has not submitted any revisionary petition and filed the instant Original Application before the Hon'ble CAT/Cuttack. 2.3 That it is humbly submitted that while working as Mail Guard under Station Manager, Chakradharpur the applicant was

Kalpeswar Behera issued with a Major Penalty Charge sheet vide letter No.T.39/Mail Gd/CKP/M/T.C.P./15/2015 dated 22.12.2015 by the Disciplinary Authority and Sr. Divisional Operations Manager, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur for absenting from his duty unauthorizedly i.e. from 16.11.2014 to 14.12.2015 without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from any competent Railway Authority and thus violated Rule 3.1 (ii) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. That the Mail Guard post is very sensitive and essential post and absence from duty effect the smooth operation of train services. The applicant being working in such a sensitive post, has absented himself unauthorisedly for which during the above period the work of the Railways badly hampered. 2.4 That it is humbly submitted that the applicant has admitted that he had absent from duty unauthorisedly due to attend his bed ridden wife and also his self-sickness and no one is available in his family to intimate about his sickness. During the enquiry the applicant has statedthat he was treated as outdoor patient by one Dr. N.R. Nayak at RogiKalayan Samity, DHH, Sundergarh and after the first visit he used to go to the residence of Dr. N.R. Nayak for treatment. The prescription and

Kalpeswar Behera advice of private visit is not available with him. Further the applicant was provided with Railway CUG Mobile which is found in working condition, by which he can contact Station Manager, Chakradharpur and intimate about his condition/sickness. He was an outdoor patient and communicating from his residence to the place of treatment, this implies that he is not physically disabled. The applicant failed to communicate with Station Manager with valid document for his absence. 2.5 That it is humbly submitted that during the enquiry the applicant has accepted charges level upon him vide answer to question no. 11 and the applicant has also tendered excuse for not providing information to his immediate Supervisor Station Manager, Chakradharpur. That it is humbly submitted that the applicant was working as Mail Guard and his services are very essential and related to movement of train services, but the applicant failed to inform about sickness to any authority. The applicant is a literate staff that he should aware that proper medical facilities are being available in Railways and the applicant is entitled for free medical facilities for self and family as per extant rules/provisions. Further, the applicant while provided with CUG SIM (Mobile) which is in working condition

Kalpeswar Behera but the applicant has failed to inform about his sickness to Railway Administration. However, the Disciplinary Authority and Sr. Divisional Operations Manager, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur has taken humanitarian angle and passed the punishment order of removal from Railway service with 1/3rd of Pension and Gratuity (both) which would have been admissible to the applicant on retirement on attaining the age of superannuation as compassionate allowance. 2.6 That it is humbly submitted that the applicant submitted appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Chakradharpur mentioning the same said facts seeking mercy to reduce the punishment and give a proper justice. The Appellate Authority has considered the appeal submitted by the applicant and stands good the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Author applicant was clearly advised to submit Revision Petition to Revising Authority and Chief Operations Manager, S.E. Railway, Garden Reach, if he so desires as per Railway servant (D&A) Rules 1968, but he has not submitted the Revision Petition intentionally. The applicant has not availed the departmental remedies prescribed under the rule

Kalpeswar Behera despite being given the opportunity knowingly, hence he has got no legitimate right to approach the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2.7 That it is humbly submitted that the enquiry has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer giving ample opportunity and natural justice to the applicant and the conclusion drawn is based on the statement of the applicant adduced during enquiry.That as a matter of fact the Disciplinary Authority has considered all aspects and although the charges leveled against the applicant were proved during enquiry but taking lenient view has imposed punishment of removal from Railway service with 1/3rd of Pension and Gratuity (both) which would have been admissible to the applicant on retirement on attaining the age of superannuation as compassionate allowance..

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder stating as follows: 4.1 That the applicant respectfully submits that he has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the OA wherein he has categorically explained the reasons for not approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal in time and has also prayed for condoning the delay in filing the OA.

Kalpeswar Behera

4.2 That that the applicant had availed leave from 10.11.14 to 15.11.14 due to illness of his wife. But unfortunately, the health condition of his wife detoriated and got paralyzed. Besides, he himself also fell ill due to suffering from tubercular pluvial disease and for which he could not intimate to his in-charge about his absence. Subsequently on his recovery, he reported himself to his in-charge on 14.12.15 with medical certificates. But he was charge sheeted on 22.12.15 for unauthorized absence from duty for the period from 16.11.14 to 14.12.15. As the explanation to the charge sheet was not found satisfactory, inquiry was conducted in a peculiar manner without following due procedure and the IO came to a wrong conclusion that the charges leveled against the applicant were proved. Accordingly, on the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing major penalty of removal from service with 1/3rd of pension and gratuity (both). As against the said order of punishment, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the same was rejected without considering the grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking to quash the impugned orders of punishment

Kalpeswar Behera dtd.19.02.16 under annexure-A/4 as well as the order dtd.27.04.16 under annexure-A/6. 4.3 That the applicant most humbly submits that his leave application from 10.11.14 to 15.11.14 was duly sanctioned, but his absence for the period from 16.11.14 to 14.12.15 was not sanctioned in spite of the fact that the applicant produced the medical certificates relating to the illness of his wife and also his own illness. Although the applicant was charge sheeted on the allegation that he was absent from his duty for the aforesaid period without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from any competent Railway authority, the explanation submitted by the applicant indicating the reasons for not intimating the competent authority was not taken into consideration. 4.4 That the applicant most humbly submits that the medical prescriptions which were produced by the applicant were not at all taken into consideration by the IO and although no explanation was issued to him for the period he was absent, the IO came to a wrong conclusion that the applicant was unauthorized absent and as such the charges were proved. The

Kalpeswar Behera

manner in which the IO conducted the inquiry in a major penalty charge sheet is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5 That the applicant most humbly submits that the disciplinary authority should not accepted the enquiry report and imposed major penalty of removal from service. When the charge of unauthorized absence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the action on the part of the disciplinary authority in imposing punishment of removal from service is not proper. Besides, the said punishment was imposed on 26.02.16 i.e. just before three days of his retirement i.e. 29.02.16 and as such the applicant lost all his service benefits for 35 years long service period. Therefore, the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the applicant and as such liable to be quashed. 4.6 That the applicant most humbly submits that the appellate authority has also not considered the appeal preferred by the applicant and simply confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. As it appears from the order passed by the appellate authority that he has not even gone through the records of the proceeding at all and passed the order in a

Kalpeswar Behera mechanical manner without any application of mind. The applicant had preferred an appeal as a mercy appeal as because is wife is bed-ridden suffering from paralysis, but the appellate authority without considering the said aspect confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority without having any mercy. Therefore the order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be quashed. 4.7 That the applicant most humbly submits that the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer is not in accordance with the rules as prescribed for major penalty charge sheet, therefore the entire proceeding is vitiated in the eye of law. That the applicant most humbly submits that the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, it cannot be said that the charges leveled against the applicant were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the disciplinary authority has passed an order imposing major penalty of removal from service is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. The order of removal from his service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge as because the applicant was imposed punishment just before three days of his retirement.

Kalpeswar Behera

4.8 That the applicant most humbly submits that the appellate authority has passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons and without going through the records of the proceeding, but simply confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore the order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be quashed. 4.8 That in view of the above, the stands taken by the Respondents in their counter are not sustainable in the eye of law and as such liable to be rejected and the OA be allowed with cost.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. As per the settled law on the scope of judicial review of the disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal can interfere in the disciplinary proceedings if there is violation of natural justice or statutory rules or if the findings are based on no evidence. In this regard Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Anr..reported in 1996 AIR 484 has held as under: “Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion

Kalpeswar Behera which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

In the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekhran 2015 (2) SCC page 610, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “.........In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: The enquiry is held by a competent authority; The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

Kalpeswar Behera

The conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; The disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; The disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced he finding; The finding of fact is based on no evidence.”

8. In V. Ramana V A.P.S.R.T.C &Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3417, this Court considered the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the court comes to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be “shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.” In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.

Kalpeswar Behera

9. In the instant case we do not find any irregularity or violation of principle of natural justice in the proceeding or the decision making process warranting interference by this Tribunal.

10. Accordingly the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending MA’s, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera