MANOJ KUMAR vs SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY on 6 November 2026

ORDER

PER:- MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER[A]

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief: “(a). An order be passed setting aside the punishment order passed by the Revisionary Authority regarding upholding of the punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority and issue direction to the department concern to inforce increment to the applicant on and from the date from which his increment was due & pay arrear amount”.

2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in her OA, are delineated and discussed herein under :- The applicant joined the Railway Service on 19.05.1995 as Apprentice PWI Grade-III and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Section Engineer (P.Way), Level-7. He is presently posted at the Divisional Engineering Training School, Ranchi, South Eastern Railway, where he has been working since 30.07.2019. He also served on deputation as Manager, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), from 19.05.2014 to 19.05.2019. The applicant submits that, while imparting theoretical and practical training to various categories of engineering staff at the Divisional Engineering Training School, he realised that the short duration of the training programmes was insufficient for ensuring adequate practical proficiency. Accordingly, after obtaining the concurrence of his controlling officer, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ranchi, on 29.08.2019, he started visiting various gang locations, work sites and level-crossing gates to monitor the implementation of safety instructions imparted to the trainees, in addition to his regular duties. The applicant contends that such field visits and the corresponding travelling allowance claims continued without any objection from the department. However, after he issued a contempt notice dated 22.09.2021 against the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi, and the concerned Enquiry Officer, alleging non-compliance with the order Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal dated 21.04.2021 passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Kolkata Bench, in O.A. No. 350/720/2021, a show-cause notice dated 27.09.2021/29.09.2021 was issued to him. The applicant submitted his explanation dated 06.10.2021. Subsequently, a charge memorandum in SF-11 was issued on 24.02.2022, to which he submitted his reply dated 07.03.2022. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately imposed the penalty of withholding of his next increment for one year with non-cumulative effect. His statutory appeal dated 21.06.2022 and subsequent revision petition dated 27.09.2022 were also rejected, with the respective authorities upholding the punishment imposed upon him. The applicant, appearing in person, submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, primarily on the following grounds:

(i) The charge memorandum is vague and non-specific, as it does not indicate the dates of the alleged field visits or the specific instances of leaving headquarters without permission.

(ii) The disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by bias, as the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi, allegedly acted both as the complainant and the Disciplinary Authority, contrary to the principle that no person can be a judge in his own cause.

(iii) The punishment order is non-speaking and reflects non-application of mind, as no cogent reasons have been recorded for holding the charges proved or for rejecting the applicant's explanation. It is further alleged that reliance was placed upon extraneous material without affording the applicant an opportunity to explain the same.

(iv) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated with a retaliatory motive immediately after the applicant issued the contempt notice dated 22.09.2021, despite the fact that his field visits had continued since 2019 without any departmental objection.

(v) The applicant's visits to various field locations were undertaken bona fide, pursuant to the concurrence of his controlling officer, for monitoring Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal the practical implementation of safety instructions by the trainees and ensuring the safety of railway tracks, rolling stock, railway property and human life.

(vi) The Appellate Authority failed to properly discharge its statutory obligation under Rule 22 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, as it did not independently examine the procedural compliance, evidentiary basis of the findings or proportionality of the punishment.

(vii) The Revisional Authority also passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without addressing the specific grounds raised by the applicant against the disciplinary and appellate orders.

3. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the claim of the applicant and submits that the applicant, while working as Instructor at the Divisional Engineering Training School, Ranchi, was issued a minor penalty charge memorandum dated 24.02.2022 for frequently leaving his headquarters without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and undertaking visits to various gang locations and level-crossing gates for counselling purposes, which did not form part of his assigned duties. It is contended that several authorised officials, including PWI (In-charge), ADENs and Safety Counsellors, were already available for such purposes. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had claimed travelling allowance for the aforesaid unauthorised visits, whereas no corresponding entries were available in the inspection registers of the concerned locations. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant's explanation was rightly found unsatisfactory and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of his next annual increment for one year with non- cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant's statutory appeal and subsequent revision petition were duly considered by the respective authorities and rejected by reasoned orders, upholding the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal allegation of bias, mala fide and retaliatory action has been categorically denied. It is also submitted that the charge memorandum was specific and based upon scrutiny of the applicant's travelling allowance journals for July and August 2021, and that the prescribed procedure under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, was duly followed.

4. The applicant, in his rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondents, reiterates the averments made in the Original Application and disputes the contentions raised by the respondents, broadly submitting as follows: That the Revisional Authority failed to consider the applicant's specific grounds regarding the alleged bias and retaliatory conduct of the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi, following the filing of the contempt petition dated 22.09.2021. It is contended that the show-cause notice was issued within five days thereof, despite the practice of work-site counselling having continued since October 2019 without any objection from the department. That the applicant had undertaken work-site counselling pursuant to the prior concurrence dated 29.08.2019 granted by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ranchi, and in response to the requirements of field officials. The applicant submits that the said activity was intended to supplement the short-duration training programmes conducted at the Divisional Engineering Training School and was undertaken in the interest of railway safety. In support thereof, he has relied upon the relevant correspondence and supporting documents annexed with the O.A. and rejoinder. That the respondents' contention that sufficient authorised staff were available for counselling is disputed by the applicant, who submits that field officials themselves had repeatedly requested his assistance in imparting safety counselling to the concerned staff. He further contends that the Assistant Divisional Engineer was exercising supervisory and Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal

administrative control over the training establishment and had been approving his travelling allowance journals. That the objection regarding absence of entries in the Gang Diary and Gang Chart is misconceived, as, according to the applicant, such records are maintained by the concerned JE/SSE (P.Way) and other designated officials under the Indian Railway Permanent Way Manual, and there is no prescribed provision for recording the movements of a counselling instructor therein. That the allegation of unauthorised journeys and false travelling allowance claims is disputed. The applicant submits that his field visits were undertaken pursuant to the existing practice and the concurrence of the Assistant Divisional Engineer. It is further contended that the allegation of false TA claims was neither specifically incorporated in the charge memorandum nor was the applicant afforded an opportunity to defend himself against such an allegation. Its subsequent inclusion in the punishment order is, therefore, alleged to be extraneous and contrary to the principles of natural justice. That the applicant disputes the respondents' assertion that the charge memorandum was based upon proper scrutiny of his travelling allowance journals. He contends that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the personal knowledge of the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), who allegedly acted both as the complainant and the Disciplinary Authority, thereby attracting the principle of bias. That the Disciplinary Authority failed to properly consider the detailed explanation submitted by the applicant on 07.03.2022 and relied upon extraneous material while imposing the penalty. The applicant further submits that the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority also failed to independently examine the documentary evidence, particularly the prior concurrence for work-site counselling and the subsequent correspondence supporting the necessity of such activities. That the Revisional Authority passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the applicant's documentary evidence and specific Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal grounds raised in the revision petition. The applicant also disputes the reference to the date of the revision petition in the respondents' pleadings and contends that the Revisional Authority failed to record adequate reasons while upholding the punishment.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 5.1 The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Senior Section Engineer (P.Way) and Instructor at the Divisional Engineering Training School, Ranchi, was issued a minor penalty charge memorandum dated 24.02.2022 on the allegation that he had frequently left his headquarters without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and had undertaken visits to various gang locations and level-crossing gates for counselling purposes, which were not part of his assigned duties. It was further alleged that he had claimed travelling allowance in respect of such journeys. 5.2 The applicant, appearing in person, submits that his visits to different field locations were undertaken in the interest of railway safety and for imparting practical counselling to safety-category staff, as the duration of regular training programmes at the Divisional Engineering Training School was insufficient to ensure adequate practical proficiency. He contends that the said practice was commenced pursuant to the concurrence dated 29.08.2019 granted by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ranchi, and continued without any objection from the departmental authorities. He further alleges that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated with a retaliatory motive, particularly in view of the contempt petition filed by him on 22.09.2021 against the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi. He also questions the legality of the disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of vagueness of the charges, alleged bias, non-application of mind and failure of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities to properly consider his defence. Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal

5.3 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant had undertaken frequent journeys to various locations without obtaining prior approval from his competent controlling authority, namely, the Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi. It is contended that the Assistant Divisional Engineer was not the competent controlling authority for the purpose of according approval for such journeys to the applicant and that the alleged concurrence dated 29.08.2019 did not constitute authorisation for undertaking individual journeys on different dates. It is further submitted that sufficient authorised personnel, including PWI (In-charge), ADENs and Safety Counsellors, were available for imparting such counselling. The respondents also point out that no corresponding entries were available in the inspection registers of the locations reflected in the applicant's travelling allowance journals. It is, therefore, contended that the explanation furnished by the applicant was rightly found unsatisfactory and the penalty was imposed after following the prescribed procedure. His appeal and revision were duly considered and rejected by the respective authorities. 5.4 The applicant in his rejoinder has reiterated that the work-site counselling was undertaken with the concurrence of the ADEN and in response to the requirements expressed by the field officials. He further submits that there is no provision under the Indian Railway Permanent Way Manual requiring a counselling instructor to make entries in the Gang Diary or Gang Chart, as such records are maintained by the concerned JE/SSE (P.Way). He also disputes the allegation of unauthorised travelling allowance claims and contends that the same was never specifically incorporated as an independent charge in the charge memorandum. The applicant has further reiterated his allegation that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as a consequence of the contempt petition filed against the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi. Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal

5.5 The principal controversy requiring consideration is whether the applicant was authorised by the competent authority to undertake the frequent journeys to various field locations reflected in his travelling allowance journals for July and August 2021 and whether the consequential disciplinary action suffers from any legal or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal. 5.6 At the outset, we find that the applicant has sought to justify his field visits on the basis of the alleged concurrence dated 29.08.2019 granted by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ranchi. However, the respondents have specifically disputed the authority of the said officer to accord the requisite permission for the individual journeys undertaken by the applicant. Their categorical stand is that the Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi, was the applicant's competent controlling authority and that prior approval was required for journeys undertaken on different dates. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate from the materials placed on record that the alleged concurrence constituted a general authorisation for undertaking all such journeys or dispensed with the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the competent authority for individual tours. 5.7 The visits of the applicant were, as per his perception, intended to supplement the training imparted at the Divisional Engineering Training School but this, neither had any authorisation from the competent authority nor provides any justification for the self-arrogated role of instructor. Hence, the same, by itself, cannot dispense with the requirement of obtaining due administrative permission from the competent authority. The usefulness or desirability of an activity and the authority to undertake such activity in the course of official duty are two distinct considerations and lie within the competence of the designated competent authority. The applicant has not been able to show such authorisation. The applicant's contention that the field officials required his services for counselling purposes remains confined to the realm of his perception and is not supported by any such requisition of his services for Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal the purpose. Therefore, it cannot by itself establish that the journeys undertaken by him were duly authorised. 5.8 The applicant has also relied upon the absence of any prescribed requirement for a counselling instructor to make entries in the Gang Diary or Gang Chart under the Indian Railway Permanent Way Manual. However, the absence of such entries, or the absence of any obligation upon a counselling instructor to make such entries, does not resolve the principal issue regarding prior authorisation of the journeys. The respondents' objection is essentially that the applicant undertook the journeys without obtaining approval from the competent controlling authority. Consequently, the applicant's explanation regarding the manner of maintenance of Gang Diaries and Gang Charts does not adequately answer the aforesaid objection. 5.9 We have also considered the applicant's contention that the allegation of false travelling allowance claims was introduced subsequently and did not form part of the original charge memorandum. However, the charge memorandum itself related to the applicant's unauthorised movements away from headquarters for counselling purposes, and the travelling allowance journals constituted the material forming the basis of the allegations regarding such movements. In the absence of any demonstrable prejudice caused to the applicant in defending the principal charge, this contention, by itself, does not warrant setting aside the disciplinary action. 5.10 As regards the allegation of mala fide and retaliatory action, the applicant has primarily relied upon the proximity between the filing of the contempt petition dated 22.09.2021 and the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 27.09.2021. While the chronology of events has been noticed, mere proximity between two events, without any further substantive material establishing personal vendetta or an extraneous consideration influencing the disciplinary proceedings, would not be sufficient to conclude that the entire action was actuated by mala fide. The respondents have specifically explained that the proceedings were Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal

initiated upon scrutiny of the applicant's travelling allowance journals for July and August 2021. We, therefore, find no sufficient material on record to accept the allegation of mala fide. 5.11 The contention regarding bias on the ground that the then Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Ranchi, acted both as the complainant and the Disciplinary Authority also does not find adequate support from the materials placed before us. The applicant has not established that the Disciplinary Authority was disqualified from exercising its statutory functions or that any personal interest influenced the decision-making process. 5.12 We further find that the applicant was issued a minor penalty charge memorandum and was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation, which he duly exercised by filing his representation dated 07.03.2022. The Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of the explanation, imposed the penalty of withholding of his next annual increment for one year without cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority thereafter considered his statutory appeal, and the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 03.10.2023, also examined the matter and upheld the punishment. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate any such procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice which would render the entire disciplinary proceedings unsustainable. 5.13 We are also unable to accept the contention that the appellate and revisional orders are liable to be interfered with merely because the authorities have not accepted the applicant's explanation. The statutory remedies were availed of by the applicant and the departmental authorities upheld the penalty upon consideration of the matter. The scope of judicial review in such proceedings is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and does not extend to substituting the Tribunal's own assessment for that of the competent departmental authorities in the absence of any established illegality, procedural irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness. Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal

5.14 In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the applicant has failed to establish that the impugned disciplinary action was actuated by mala fide, that the proceedings suffered from any material procedural infirmity, or that the orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities warrant interference by this Tribunal. The grounds urged by the applicant, including the alleged prior concurrence for work- site counselling, do not sufficiently displace the respondents' specific objection regarding the absence of prior approval from the competent controlling authority for the journeys in question.

6. Accordingly, OA stands dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (A) Member (J)

/sonali/

Digitally signed by Sonali Lal Sonali Lal