SOUMALYA MUKHERJEE vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act, 1985 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(i)Call for the records and on perusal order for quashing of the Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant (Annexure- A3) dated 12.8.2021, and the orders passed by all the authorities (Annexure-A6 dated 31.8.2023, A8 dated 23.1.2024 and A10 dated 25.9.2024); by R4, R3 & R2 respectively.

(ii) order for the reinstatement of the applicant with all consequential benefits; and

(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. These reliefs are claimed on the grounds set out in para 5, which are as follows:- “1. The applicant who was subjected to medical examination at Railway Hospital, Bengaluru on 29.07.2021 by the respondents was examined by the Railway Doctor and was certified as "Normal and No symptoms of drunkenness." But that certificate has not been TARU LATA

TARU LATA

placed as one of the listed documents in the charge memorandum and the author of the document has not been cited as one of the Administrative witnesses. The request of the applicant in this regard for the purpose of defence was turned down by the inquiry officer without assigning any reason.

2. It is submitted that the blood and urine sample of the applicant were sent to forensic lab for testing as per the procedure. As the report of the lab states that there was no presence of Ethyl alcohol in blood and urine, the same has been conveniently ignored by the inquiry officer and the respondents. On the other hand, if the report had been against the applicant, that would have been taken as defence by these respondents to justify their action.

3. No reasonable, proper and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the applicant to defend in the departmental inquiry. So whole proceedings stand vitiated on the whole for the non-adherence to the established canons of justice with regard to supply of additional documents and non taking of the defence documents placed, denial of examination of defence witness and in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The revised policy on Drunkenness on duty issued by the Railway Board on 27.11.2001 suggests only for reversion from the safety critical post and not for removal from service. In the case of the applicant, even in the absence of drunkenness, action has been taken to punish him severely.

5. When the respondents only had sent the applicant for medical examination to the Railway hospital further to the breath analyser test result shown as positive and also to send the blood sample to forensic lab test, the respondent no.4 should have waited for the outcome of the Medical and Lab report before issuing the charge sheet. Instead, hurriedly the charge sheet has been issued based on the report of the supervisory official and the breath analyser test result.

6. The inquiry officer has refused to entertain the report of the Medical officer and the forensic lab as additional documents in the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

inquiry stating that they had not been placed as listed documents in the charge sheet and they cannot be taken in the inquiry. This clearly shows that the inquiry officer is not aware of the procedure of conducting inquiry and has acted as per the instructions of the Disciplinary authority to prove the charges.

7. The orders of the Appellate Authority and Revising Authority are non-speaking orders. The statement of the Revising authority that the blood sample was taken after 3 hours from the initial positive BA test, during which time the alcohol content in his blood could have diminished and the forensic report cannot be relied upon is very much ridiculous and unconvincing. If his statement is considered as correct, why the applicant was sent for medical test and the blood sample was sent to lab? Since the forensic lab result was not as expected by the respondents, they are not relying upon that, whereas if the report is otherwise, that would have been taken as a base to finish the career of the employee.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the synopsis, are as follows:- “1. The applicant who was working as Loco Pilot (Shunting) in Bengaluru Division of South Western Railway was issued with a major penalty charge sheet on 12.08.2021 by the Respondent no.4 (Annexure-A 3) based on the Breath analyser test result which was positive. But the report of the Railway Medical Officer which states that the applicant had no symptoms of drunkenness and the Forensic lab report which clearly reveals that no alcohol present in the blood of the applicant were not taken into consideration as they were in favour of the applicant.

2. Based on the illogical and biased report of the inquiry officer as charge proved, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the Penalty of Removal from service on 31.08.2023 (Annexure-A 6) which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 23.01.2024 (Annexure-A 8) and by the Revising Authority on 25.09.2024 (Annexure-A 10).

3. As the decision of Removing from service has been taken by the respondents mechanically and in haste purely relying on illogical TARU LATA

TARU LATA

and unreliable report of the Inquiry officer and also by ignoring the reports of the Railway Doctor and the Forensic lab the applicant is approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal through this O.A to get justice.”

4. On notice, the respondents filed their reply statements. The applicant has not filed a rejoinder.

5. The matter was taken up for final hearing on 26.10.2026. Shri K. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Smt. P. K. Praneshwari, learned counsel for the respondents, appeared and were heard.

6. We have carefully examined the pleadings and the material on record and have considered the rival submissions. The applicant seeks to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the charge memorandum dated 12.08.2021, as well as the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.08.2023, the Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2024 and the Revising Authority dated 25.09.2024. He also seeks reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The issues arising for consideration are examined below.

7. The material facts are largely undisputed. The applicant was working as Loco Pilot (Shunting) in Bengaluru Division and was on duty at the Coaching Yard, Bengaluru, on 29.07.2021. When he reported for duty at 06:55 hrs, he was subjected to a Breath Analyzer test, which TARU LATA

TARU LATA

returned a positive result, recording an alcohol level of 64 mg/100 ml of blood. He was thereafter directed to the Railway Hospital for medical examination. The duty doctor collected a blood sample and, following a detailed examination, the Divisional Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, reported that the applicant was normal and displayed no symptoms of drunkenness. The blood and urine samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory on 05.08.2021. By report dated 07.09.2021, the Director of the Laboratory stated that Ethyl alcohol was not detected in either the blood or the urine sample.

8. A major-penalty charge memorandum bearing No. B.E./TRO.227/MC/S.M/21/21 was issued to the applicant on 12.08.2021 (Annexure A-3). The applicant participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 19.04.2022, and the report was forwarded to the applicant on 06.06.2022. The applicant submitted his response on 20.06.2022, raising, among other matters, the non-consideration of documents which he considered relevant to his defence. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ by penalty advice No. B/E/TRO./227/MC/SM/21/2021 dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure A-6).

9. The applicant preferred an appeal on 11.10.2023, specifically bringing to the notice of the Appellate Authority the reports of the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Forensic Science Laboratory and the Railway Medical Officer. By order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure A-8), the Appellate Authority upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. According to the applicant, the Appellate Authority did so without addressing the two reports, which, in his submission, were material to the determination of the charge.

10. The applicant thereafter preferred a Revision Petition dated 19.02.2024 before the Revising Authority, reiterating the same contentions. By order No. SWR/P.227/DAR/LP(S)-II/TRO/SBC/S.M. dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure A-10), the Revising Authority confirmed the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’. The Revising Authority observed that the Forensic Science Laboratory report could not be fully relied upon, having regard to the interval between the initial Breath Analyzer test and the collection of the blood sample. The applicant questions that reasoning and contends that, if the report was not to be relied upon, there was no purpose in sending the sample for forensic examination.

11. The applicant’s case, in substance, is that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ without taking material evidence into account, and that the Appellate and Revising Authorities confirmed the penalty mechanically. He submits that the impugned orders are therefore liable to be set aside. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

12. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the procedure prescribed for imposing a major penalty was duly followed and that the principles of natural justice were observed. According to them, the applicant was afforded adequate opportunities to participate in the inquiry, examine the listed witnesses and documents, present his defence, and obtain the assistance of a Defence Assistant. After furnishing the inquiry report to the applicant and considering his response, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty in accordance with the Railway policy on drunkenness on duty. The respondents contend that, under the applicable policy, an alcohol level exceeding 21 mg/100 ml of blood, or a second detection of an alcohol level between 1 and 20 mg/100 ml of blood, attracts the penalty of removal from service.

13. The applicant relies upon the Railway Board’s ‘Drunkenness on Duty’ Policy No. 2001/Safety-I/23/4 dated 27.11.2001. He submits that the policy adopts a rehabilitative as well as deterrent approach. In particular, he relies on paragraph 3, item (viii), which provides for habitual drinkers to be sent, on priority, for de-addiction rehabilitation, and item (ix), which provides that staff who successfully complete the de-addiction programme are to remain under watch for a further period of six months before being removed from the list. He also refers to paragraphs 4 and 5 dealing with the preventive and deterrent aspects of TARU LATA

TARU LATA

the revised policy, and paragraph 6 dealing with punishment norms. In particular, he relies on paragraph 6(v), which provides that, upon detection on three occasions, irrespective of the level of alcohol detected, disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated for reversion from the safety- critical post. According to the applicant, removal from service was not prescribed under that policy. The respondents, however, submit that the 2001 policy was superseded by subsequent policies. They also rely on the following passage in the 2001 policy: “State of Art Breathanalyser equipment capable of giving exact level of Alcohol content in the blood including print outs need to be introduced. These breathanalysers should necessarily have the memory function so as in case of suspect a printout can be taken at a convenient location. Traffic Directorate of RDSO will standardize specifications of Fuel cell sensor based breathanalysers.”

The respondents submit that the policy envisaged the introduction of state-of-the-art Breath Analyzer equipment capable of indicating the precise level of alcohol content in the blood and generating printouts. According to them, such equipment was subsequently introduced. They further point out that the 2001 policy does not prescribe blood or urine testing through a Forensic Science Laboratory. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

14. The respondents submit that the policy was revised on 02.11.2012 under No. 2009/Safety(DM)/6/12/Committee. The communication relied upon by them reads as follows: “Sub: Policy on Drunkenness on duty Ref: Board's office letter of even number dated 4.6.2010

Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) constituted a Committee to review the existing policy on drunkenness on duty vide Board's letter No.ERB-I/2012/23/11 dated 5.3.2010. The committee submitted its report on 28.9.2010 after deliberation at Board level including CRB, ML, Adv(ME), etc whose suggestions have been duly incorporated in the revised Policy (2012) of Drunkenness on duty. In this regard, Chairman Railway Board has desired to know the practical aspects of holding de-addiction camps over Indian Railways and financial implications in holding de-addiction camp. It is requested that the above information may be furnished at the earliest by FAX no.011-23385836.”

The respondents further rely on paragraph 1 of the revised policy, which sets out its aims as follows: “1. Aim of the Revised Policy:

(i) Ensuring that staffs who are having a drinking problem are identified.

(ii) Protect the health and welfare of staff by offering counselling and rehabilitation to those with alcohol related problems.

(iii) Prevent risks to staff, passengers and the general public from abuses of alcohol by staff in Safety critical posts.

(iv) Prevent the damaging effects of alcohol on optimum operational efficiency.

(v) Take up with staff who are incorrigible and are a danger both to themselves as also to the system.”

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Paragraph 2 of the policy, under the heading ‘Staff Covered’, includes in category

(i) “Train running staff i.e. Drivers/Motormen/Asstt. Drivers/Guards etc.”. There is no dispute that the applicant, as a Loco Pilot, falls within this category. The respondents also refer to paragraph 3.1, dealing with the preventive strategy, which contains, among other things, the following provisions: “(iv) In case any staff is found habitual of drinking during initial training his services should not be confirmed.

(v) All Railway staff should be counseled that it is their moral duty to report in case above category staff is found under the influence of alcohol.

(vi) Such Staff identified to be habitual should be made aware/counseled of the following during mandatory courses/trainings at training centres and during Periodical Medical Examinations (PMEs)

(a) Short-term/long-term ill effects of alcohol.

(b) Not to take alcohol eight hours before going on duty or while on duty.

(vii) All crew lobbies must be provided with State of the art breathanalyzers capable of indicating exact level of Alcohol content in the blood including printouts need to be introduced. These breathanalyzers should necessarily have the memory function so that a printout can be taken at a convenient location / time in case of suspect. A standby breathanalyzer should also be available. ..................

(xi) In case the result of the breathanalyzer test is positive then a printout of the readings must be obtained for further D&AR action and endorsement should be made in his service records.”

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

The respondents further submit that paragraph 4 prescribes the penalties applicable to the different categories of staff. They emphasise that train-running staff are placed in the first category because alcohol consumption by such personnel may endanger passengers, other members of the public and persons in the vicinity in the event of a railway accident. According to the respondents, where the alcohol level exceeds 21 mg/100 ml of blood, or where there is a second detection of an alcohol level between 1 and 20 mg/100 ml of blood, removal from service is the prescribed penalty.

15. The respondents also rely on the policy/instructions dated 12.07.2022, issued vide No. SWR/M/R/42/Safety, Instruction No. 36. They submit that the 2022 policy makes the Breath Analyzer test mandatory for running staff at the time of signing ‘ON’ and signing ‘OFF’. In the applicant’s case, the test was conducted when he signed ‘ON’, and a printout of the result was generated and produced.

Norms Action to be taken A) Alcohol level between 1-20 mg/100ml of blood Staff not to be allowed to perform duty and endorsement should be made in his service records. B) Alcohol level >21mg/100ml of blood or 2nd occasion of alcohol level between 1-20 per 100ml of blood Removal from service.

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

The respondents accordingly submit that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and policy, and that the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ was imposed after following the prescribed procedure. They contend that the Appellate Authority and the Revising Authority considered the applicant’s objections and rightly declined to interfere with the penalty. The contents of the 2012 and 2022 policies have not been disputed by the applicant by filing a rejoinder.

16. We now proceed to examine the grounds urged by the applicant in paragraph 5 of the Original Application.

(a) In ground 5(1), the applicant submits that, upon his medical examination at the Railway Hospital, Bengaluru, on 29.07.2021, the Railway doctor certified him as ‘Normal and No symptoms of drunkenness.’ He contends that this certificate was not included in the list of documents accompanying the charge memorandum, that its author was not cited as a departmental witness, and that the Inquiry Officer rejected his request to bring the document on record for the purpose of his defence without assigning reasons. The respondents submit that the Breath Analyzer equipment in use was state-of-the-art, capable of measuring the alcohol level and generating a printout. They point out that the Breath Analyzer report dated 29.07.2021, recording the test at 07:12 hrs, was included at Folio TARU LATA

TARU LATA

No. 2 in the list of documents by which the charge was proposed to be established. Their case is that the Breath Analyzer report was reliable and sufficient to sustain the charge, and that the doctor’s report and the subsequent forensic examination of the blood and urine samples were not essential to establish it. The applicant submits that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Appellate Authority addressed this aspect. The respondents, however, point out that the Revising Authority considered it in the impugned order. The Revising Authority recorded that the applicant had tested positive while on duty on a hand-held Breath Analyzer, and that testing of crew members by Breath Analyzer was a procedure mandated by the Railway Board. It also considered the applicant’s reliance on the Forensic Science Laboratory report, which did not detect alcohol in his blood, but observed that the blood sample had been collected approximately three hours after the positive Breath Analyzer test, during which interval the alcohol level could have diminished. On that basis, it held that the forensic report could not be treated as conclusive. The Revising Authority further recorded that the applicant had tested positive on two earlier occasions and was listed as a habitual drinker. Having regard to those circumstances, it concluded that the applicant was intoxicated at the time of the Breath Analyzer test, in TARU LATA

TARU LATA

violation of Rule GR 2.09(2), and that intoxication of a crew member while on duty had direct implications for the safe operation of trains and public safety. It accordingly concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and considered the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority to be justified. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. If, as the respondents submit, the Breath Analyzer was a calibrated, advanced instrument capable of generating an on-the-spot printout, the recorded result constitutes relevant evidence. In the exercise of judicial review, we cannot substitute our own assessment of that evidence merely because the applicant relies on subsequent medical and forensic reports. The records indicate that the applicant was examined by the doctor, and the blood and urine samples were collected, approximately three hours after the Breath Analyzer test. The Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 07.09.2021 records that the samples were received by the laboratory on 05.08.2021 and that the colour tests and gas chromatographic methods did not detect Ethyl alcohol. The interval between the Breath Analyzer test and the collection of the samples, together with the subsequent interval before their receipt by the laboratory, were circumstances considered by the Revising Authority in assessing the evidentiary value of the forensic report. In the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the later negative reports, by themselves, displace the contemporaneous Breath Analyzer result and its printout. We therefore find no ground to interfere on the basis of this contention.

(b) In ground 5(2), the applicant contends that the blood and urine samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in accordance with the procedure, and that the report, which recorded no presence of Ethyl alcohol in either sample, was ignored by the Inquiry Officer and the respondents. He submits that the respondents would have relied upon the report had it been adverse to him. The record indicates that the medical examination and collection of samples took place approximately three hours after the Breath Analyzer test. The respondents rely on this interval to explain why the later samples may not have disclosed alcohol, notwithstanding the positive result recorded by the Breath Analyzer at the time the applicant reported for duty. In view of the timing of the tests and the contemporaneous printout relied upon in the inquiry, we are not satisfied that the negative forensic report necessarily contradicts or discredits the Breath Analyzer result. This ground, therefore, does not establish a basis for interference. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(c) In ground 5(3), the applicant alleges that he was not afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry. He contends that the proceedings are vitiated by the alleged failure to supply additional documents, the non-consideration of defence documents, the refusal to permit the examination of a defence witness and consequent violation of the principles of natural justice. These are broad allegations and require examination against the record of the inquiry and the applicant’s successive representations. In his representation dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure A-5), submitted before the penalty order, the applicant principally alleged bias on the part of the Inquiry Officer, but did not explain the basis for that allegation. He also referred to the report of the Divisional Medical Officer and the Forensic Science Laboratory report, both of which recorded no detection of alcohol, and contended that they ought to have been taken into evidence. However, the applicant has not placed before us any provision of the applicable rules or policy making those reports mandatory evidence in every case of alleged drunkenness. The policies relied upon, including the 2001 policy and the subsequent policy dated 02.11.2012, refer to the use of state-of-the-art Breath Analyzer equipment capable of indicating the alcohol level and generating printouts. The respondents state that such equipment was in use, that the test was conducted and a printout TARU LATA

TARU LATA

generated, and that the printout formed part of the inquiry record. On the material placed before us, the subsequent medical and laboratory examinations cannot be treated as indispensable evidence in every case where a Breath Analyzer test has yielded a positive result. The penalty order also records that the applicant was included in the list of running staff identified as habitual drinkers. It further refers to two subsequent positive Breath Analyzer tests, dated 28.12.2022 and 28.04.2023, and records the Disciplinary Authority’s conclusion that the applicant had not changed his conduct and had violated Rule GR 2.09(2), failed to maintain devotion to duty and contravened the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Having regard to the safety-sensitive nature of the applicant’s duties as a member of the train-running staff, the Disciplinary Authority considered his conduct to affect public safety and the larger public interest, and imposed the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’. In his appeal dated 11.10.2023, the applicant principally challenged the reliance placed on the Breath Analyzer result without due consideration of the doctor’s preliminary examination and the Forensic Science Laboratory report. He also contended that the person who had taken him to the hospital ought to have been examined as a witness. The Appellate Authority dealt with the request to call Shri S. Ravi, CLI/SBC, TARU LATA

TARU LATA

as an additional witness. It noted that the Inquiry Officer had already considered and decided that request during the inquiry, and did not find that a person whose role was limited to taking the applicant to the hospital was a necessary witness. The Appellate Authority also emphasised that drunkenness among running staff, whether at the commencement of duty or during duty, was a zero-tolerance matter because of its serious safety implications. It therefore agreed with the Disciplinary Authority. In the Revision Petition, the applicant gave a further account of the events preceding the test. He stated that on 28.07.2021 he had felt feverish and experienced body and throat pain, suspected that he might have contracted ‘Corona’, and contacted his father, who advised him to take a homeopathic medicine. The applicant stated that he took a double dose of that medicine on the previous night and suggested that this could explain the positive Breath Analyzer result of 64 mg/100 ml recorded when he reported for duty the following morning. He also relied on the Forensic Science Laboratory report and the hospital case sheet to contend that the evidence was insufficient to justify the severe penalty imposed. The Revising Authority considered these submissions and, by order dated 25.09.2024, recorded that the applicant had tested positive on TARU LATA

TARU LATA

the hand-held Breath Analyzer while on duty and that such testing was mandated by the Railway Board for crew members. It addressed the applicant’s reliance on the negative forensic report and observed that the blood sample had been collected approximately three hours after the initial positive test, during which period the alcohol content could have diminished. It therefore declined to treat the forensic report as conclusive. The Revising Authority also referred to the applicant’s two prior positive tests and his inclusion in the list of habitual drinkers. On the basis of these circumstances, it concluded that the applicant had been intoxicated at the time of the Breath Analyzer test, in violation of Rule GR 2.09(2), and that such conduct had direct implications for the safe operation of trains. It accordingly concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and upheld the penalty as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. We have examined the charge memorandum, the inquiry report, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revising Authority, as well as the applicant’s representations. The record shows that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to participate in the inquiry and to make his defence. His principal contentions concerning the medical examination, the forensic report and the proposed additional TARU LATA

TARU LATA

witness were considered by the authorities. We do not find, on the material placed before us, that the proceedings were vitiated by denial of a reasonable opportunity or by a breach of the principles of natural justice. The applicant has therefore not established the procedural infirmity alleged in ground 5(3).

(d) In para 5(4), the applicant mentions that the revised policy on Drunkenness on duty issued by the Railway Board on 27.11.2001 suggests only for reversion from the safety critical post and not for removal from service. In the case of the applicant, even in the absence of drunkenness, action has been taken to punish him severely. The respondents have placed on record the subsequent policies dated 02.11.2012 and 12.07.2022, which, according to them, superseded the 2001 policy relied upon by the applicant. The later policy applies to category 1 staff, including train-running staff such as Drivers, Motormen, Assistant Drivers and Guards. It requires crew lobbies to be equipped with state-of-the-art Breath Analyzers capable of indicating the alcohol level and generating printouts, with memory functionality and a standby instrument. Where the Breath Analyzer test is positive, a printout of the reading is to be obtained for further disciplinary and appeal-related action, and action is to be taken under paragraph 4.0(B) of the policy. The policy prescribes removal from service where the alcohol TARU LATA

TARU LATA

level exceeds 21 mg/100 ml of blood, or on a second occasion where the level is between 1 and 20 mg/100 ml of blood. The respondents submit that the Breath Analyzer machines in use had the requisite memory and printout capabilities, and that the applicant’s test was conducted using such equipment. The printout was produced in the inquiry. In view of the subsequent policies placed on record, the applicant’s reliance on the punishment provisions of the 2001 policy does not assist him.

(e) In ground 5(5), the applicant contends that, having referred him for medical examination and sent his blood sample for forensic testing after the positive Breath Analyzer result, the respondents ought to have awaited the medical and laboratory reports before issuing the charge memorandum. He submits that the charge memorandum was issued hastily on the basis of the supervisory official’s report and the Breath Analyzer result alone. The record and the parties’ submissions indicate that approximately three hours elapsed between the Breath Analyzer test and the medical examination and collection of the blood and urine samples. The respondents rely on the policy dated 02.11.2012, which provides for supplementary blood testing until calibrated, state-of-the-art Breath Analyzer equipment is available across the Indian Railways. Their TARU LATA

TARU LATA

submission is that, once such calibrated equipment is available, a supplementary blood test is not required to establish the result. The mere fact that the applicant was thereafter sent for medical examination, and that a time interval of approximately three hours elapsed before the samples were collected, does not by itself render the earlier Breath Analyzer result unreliable. Having regard to the policy and the printout relied upon in the inquiry, we are not persuaded that the respondents were required to defer issuance of the charge memorandum until receipt of the later medical and forensic reports. This ground does not, therefore, warrant interference.

(f) In ground 5(6), the applicant submits that the Inquiry Officer refused to receive the medical report and the Forensic Science Laboratory report as additional documents on the ground that they had not been included in the list of documents accompanying the charge memorandum. According to the applicant, this demonstrates that the Inquiry Officer did not understand the procedure governing disciplinary inquiries and acted at the instance of the Disciplinary Authority to secure proof of the charges. Even accepting that the applicant sought to have these reports received as additional documents, the question is whether their non- reception vitiated the inquiry or materially prejudiced his defence. The TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Breath Analyzer result, recorded contemporaneously and supported by a printout, was relied upon as the primary evidence of the charge. The medical examination and collection of blood and urine samples took place approximately three hours later. In the circumstances, the later reports do not necessarily displace the contemporaneous result. We are not persuaded that the refusal to receive those reports as additional documents, in the circumstances of this case, has been shown to have caused such prejudice as would vitiate the inquiry. This ground also fails.

(g) In ground 5(7), the applicant contends that the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revising Authority are non-speaking. He challenges the Revising Authority’s observation that the blood sample was collected approximately three hours after the positive Breath Analyzer test and that the alcohol content could have diminished in the intervening period. He questions why he was sent for medical examination and why the sample was sent to the laboratory if the resulting report was not to be relied upon. He further alleges that the respondents would have relied upon the report had it been adverse to him. The records indicate that the time of the Breath Analyzer test and the subsequent medical examination was recorded, and that TARU LATA

TARU LATA

approximately three hours elapsed before the blood and urine samples were collected. The Revising Authority’s observation regarding the interval between the tests is therefore founded on the chronology available on record. The possibility that the alcohol content in the blood may have diminished during that interval was the explanation adopted by the Revising Authority for not treating the later negative report as conclusive. The fact that the respondents also arranged a medical examination and forensic testing does not, by itself, mean that the contemporaneous Breath Analyzer result could not be relied upon. In view of the printout and the other material considered in the inquiry, the applicant has not shown that the authorities’ approach was irrational or perverse. The applicant also argued at the hearing that the consumption of coconut water or certain medication could cause a Breath Analyzer to indicate alcohol, and that the result should not be relied upon in the absence of a confirmatory blood or urine test. However, no credible material has been placed before us to substantiate that submission in the circumstances of this case. Further, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in judicial review does not extend to a fresh appraisal of the evidence as though it were hearing an appeal on facts. The question is whether the finding is supported by some legally admissible material and whether the decision- TARU LATA

TARU LATA

making process is vitiated by any recognised ground for judicial intervention. In a disciplinary inquiry, the charge is to be established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities; proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal trial, is not necessary. A Breath Analyzer test conducted using equipment with memory and printout capabilities may constitute relevant evidence in such proceedings. In the present case, the authorities relied upon the recorded result and the printout, considered the applicant’s explanations and addressed the subsequent medical and forensic reports. We find no basis to hold that the conclusion reached is unsupported by evidence.

17. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s contentions discredit the respondents’ case. The charge memorandum was issued on 12.08.2021, whereas the Forensic Science Laboratory report was received on 07.09.2021. The respondents submit that allegations of drunkenness against train-running staff require prompt attention because intoxication while on duty may lead to serious railway accidents and endanger passengers and members of the public. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity merely because the respondents did not await the forensic report before issuing the charge memorandum, particularly when the Breath Analyzer result and its printout were relied TARU LATA

TARU LATA

upon as the primary evidence. A court or tribunal cannot substitute its own appreciation of evidence for that of the departmental authorities where their conclusion is supported by evidence and is not arbitrary, perverse or mala fide. The medical examination could also serve the purpose of providing immediate medical attention and counselling to the employee, and need not be viewed solely as an additional means of proving the charge.

18. On examining the material on record, we find no indication that the evidence was used in a mala fide or perverse manner. The blood samples were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory as part of the process; however, the report based on samples collected approximately three hours after the Breath Analyzer test does not, in the circumstances, displace the on-the-spot result. We have considered the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revising Authority. Each deals with the applicant’s principal contentions and records reasons for its conclusion. We are therefore unable to accept the submission that the impugned orders are non-speaking.

19. The applicant has not established any procedural irregularity or other infirmity that would warrant interference with the impugned orders. We have also considered the matter in the light of the principles TARU LATA

TARU LATA

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments discussed below.

20. Further, we have examined this case with reference to Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran (supra) in paras 12, 13 and 20, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled the following:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 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:

a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

f. 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;

g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; TARU LATA

TARU LATA

h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) . re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) . interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) . go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) . go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) . interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) . correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) . go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, TARU LATA

TARU LATA

reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.”

We have tested the present case against the principles set out above. The inquiry was conducted by a competent authority and, on the material placed before us, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. We find no established violation of the principles of natural justice. Nor is there anything on record to show that the authorities were prevented from reaching a fair conclusion by extraneous considerations or were influenced by irrelevant factors. The conclusions reached by the departmental authorities are supported by the evidence on record and cannot be characterised as arbitrary or capricious. We find no material to show that the Disciplinary Authority excluded admissible and material evidence in a manner that vitiated the findings, or relied upon inadmissible evidence that influenced its conclusion. The finding is based on evidence and is not a case of ‘no evidence’. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, a court or tribunal exercising judicial review does not re-appreciate the evidence, reassess its adequacy or reliability, or interfere with findings supported by some legal evidence, where the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with TARU LATA

TARU LATA

law. Nor does it correct errors of fact, however grave, or interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the punishment shocks its conscience. Applying these settled principles, we find that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself. The authorities considered the material on record and the principal contentions raised by the applicant. The applicant has not established any ground warranting interference with the impugned orders.

21. Our conclusion as to the limited scope of judicial review, particularly in relation to re-appreciation of evidence, is also supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others (supra), wherein the Court held as follows: “The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges against the appellant to have been proved. After consultation with the UPSC, the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.10.1986. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, upheld all the charges as having been proved but converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The delinquent filed an appeal challenging the finding on merits, and the Union filed an appeal canvassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by it. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India and dismissing that of the delinquent. Per Ramaswamy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ 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 TARU LATA

TARU LATA

treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion 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 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.”

22. In Union of India v. Upendra Singh, reported in 1994 (3) SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be.”

The policies of 2012 and 2022 prescribe the same penalty where the alcohol level exceeds 21 mg/100 ml of blood. Accordingly, once the charge was held proved, the respondents considered removal from service to be the prescribed penalty. The safety of passengers and other members of the public is a matter of substantial public importance, particularly in relation to train-running staff.

23. In view of the facts of the case and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, we find no merit in the Original Application. The application is accordingly dismissed in the following terms:

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

ORDER:

The Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/tl/ TARU LATA

TARU LATA