PINAKI NANDAN vs RAILWAY on 11 November 2026

1. The Un Hajipur

2. The Di District

3. The D Sonepu

4. The Ad Sonepu

5. The Sr.

For Appl For Resp

1. The ap the Adm relief:

CENTRAL ADMINISTRA PATNA BENCH, O.A. No. 050/00

Pro

C O R A M

ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

Nandan, son of Shri Shankar Sonepur Division, EC Railway

Versu

nion of India, through the Ge r, At and PO Hajipur, District ivisional Railway Manager, t- Saran. Divisional Railway Manager ur. dditional Divisional Railway M ur. Divisional Mechanical Engin

licant:- Mr. Sadan Kum pondents:- Mr. T.N. Thak O R D Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C plicant has approached this T ministrative Tribunals Act, 19 i. To set aside the order d Annexure A-1.

ATIVE TRIBUNAL , PATNA

Reserved on: -15.10.2026 onounced on:- 11.11.2026 M CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] r Sah, Sr. A.L.P., posted at y, Hajipur.

………Applicant us eneral Manager, EC Railway, t- Vaishali (Bihar). Sonepur, At PO- Sonepur, r (Personnel), EC Railway, Manager (Power), EC Railway, neer, EC Railway, Sonepur.

……..Respondents mar Singh, ld. Adv. kur, ld. Sr. CGSC E R Chandra, Member (A): Tribunal under Section 19 of 985 praying for the following dated 19.11.2014 as contained in t , , , , f g n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

2. The bri and del 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

ii. To set aside the order da Annexure A-3. iii. To set aside the order da Annexure A-5. iv. To grant consequential ben v. To allow cost of the litigati vi. To grant any other relief/ proper.

ief facts of the case, as per th lineated as follows: 1 The applicant while working a at Varanasi, was put under sus Loco at Varanasi Yard on shunting work in the Loci. 2 Thereafter, memo of charge upon the applicant on 19.11.20 the Railway Servants (Discipl Senior Divisional Mechanical was stated that the derailment his carelessness and disinteres in violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) Conduct Rules, 1966. (Annexu 3 It appears from the charge-sh the basis of the report of Sonepur however, the said re applicant alongwith the charge 4 On 04.12.2014, the applican charge-sheet, denying cha (Annexure A-2) 5 However, the Disciplinary Au representation/reply submitte an order on 03.01.2015 imp Annual Increment of Pay for tw cumulative effect. (Annexure ated 03.01.2015 as contained in ated 09.02.2016 as contained in nefits. ion. f/reliefs, which may deem fit and he instant O.A., are discussed as a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot spension due to derailment of a 09.04.2014 as he was doing for minor penalty was served 014/25.11.2014 under Rule 11 of line & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by Engineer, Sonepur in which it t of the Loco was caused due to st to duty and as such he acted & (iii) of the Railway Service ure A-1 series) eet that the same was issued on Sr. Divisional Safety Officer, eport was not supplied to the e-sheet. nt submitted his reply to the arges leveled against him. thority without considering the ed by the applicant has passed posing penalty of stoppage of wo years (24 months) with non- e A-3)

n n d d t a g d f y t o d e n , e e . e d f - Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.6 2.7

3. Learne ground i. ii. iii. iv. v.

6 Thereafter, being aggrieved b Disciplinary Authority, the a before the Additional Divisi Railway, Sonepur on 17.02. Appellate Authority has been by rejecting the appeal on 09.0 7 The Appellate Authority has personal hearing to the applic which is against the Rule 24 o against the decision of the H similar matter. Moreover, neit nor the Appellate Authority ha dated 15.01.2014 while fix applicant and holding him gu instant Original Application. d counsel for the applican ds in the OA: The Disciplinary Authority h application for violation of applicable in the present cas mentioned in the charge-sheet authority is bad in law and illeg The Disciplinary Authority h holding the applicant guilty an same fact as was in the charge- It becomes evident that poin have not been considered by non-consideration of repres injustice for the applicant. The Appellate Authority has terms of Rules 2 and 24 of the The order as passed by the speaking and cryptic and illega by the order as passed by the applicant preferred an appeal ional Railway Manager, E.C. 2015 (Annexure A-4). The pleased to uphold the penalty 02.2016 (Annexure A-5). s not given an opportunity of cant while deciding the appeal of the RS (D&A) Rules and also Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ther the Disciplinary Authority as considered “SAFETY ALERT” xing responsibility upon the uilty for derailment. Hence, the nt has taken the following has imposed penalty upon the f S.R. 3.77(4) which is not se moreover, the same is not t and the order as passed by the gal as such. has not given any reason for nd in his order has repeated the -sheet. nts raised in the representation the Disciplinary Authority and sentation resulted in grave not considered the appeal in Railway Servant (D&A) Rules. e Appellate Authority is non- al as such.

e l . e y f l o e y ” e e g e t t e r e n d e n - Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

4. Per con written 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

5. Learne Howeve No.

procee Appea which “(iii) A

Th Se cop ch ntra, the Respondents have n statements in which it was st The applicant is posted as Sr. and not at Varanasi. The cha basis of report sent by Sr. DSO need to attach the copy of the have specifically been mention It is also stated that the incid had the applicant followed t G&SR. However, the applica (Annexure R -1) It is also stated that the repre fully considered and decision representation deeply. The Ap any new fact in the appeal and of RS (D & A) Rules have been It is also stated that accord personal hearing is not essenti In view of above facts and Application is fit to be rejected d counsel for the applicant er, during the course of argu dated 06.04.2 edings under Railway S al) Rules, 1968- Observa the relevant part of Rule Action on inquiry report here is also a clear provis ervants (Discipline and Ap py of inquiry report w harged official to enab O.A. No. 050/00045/2017 contested the case by filing tated that: . ALP at Diesel Lobby/Barauni rge-sheet was prepared on the O, Sonpur. Therefore, there is no e report. Moreover, the charges ned in the charge-sheet. dent could have been avoided, the Rules of Para 3.77 (4) of ant did not follow the rules. esentation of the applicant was n was taken after studying his ppellate Authority did not find d the provisions under Rule 24 fully considered. ding to merit of this case the ial under the aforesaid Rule 24. d circumstances, the Original d. has not filed any rejoinder. ument, he submitted a RBE 2026, Sub.-Disciplinary Servants (Discipline and ance of procedure reg., 2 is as under: sion in rule 10 of Railway ppeal) Rules, 1968 that a will be supplied to the ble him to submit his g i e o s , f . s s d e . l . E y d , y a e s Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench rep ord Au Inq pr Au the the inq off ma pr kn the cir Se cle see Se be ap

(iv) Ne

Th ord Re em on cas dis

6. After h perusal presentation thereon, if der are passed in the c uthority. The said rules als quiry Officer hold a ch oved or partly proved uthority proposes to disag e Inquiry Officer, the rea e disciplinary authority quiry officer will also be ficial along with the inqu ake an effective repr ocedure is very well nown. Non observance o erefore, cannot be cou rcumstances. Likewise, ervants (Discipline and Ap ear responsibility on the e whether the procedure ervants (Discipline and A een complied with or no ppropriate orders accordin ecessity of reasoned and s he importance of passing ders by the Discipl evisionary Authorities mphasized. A reasoned a nly enables proper discus se but ensures that the p sciplinary proceedings ar hearing the learned counsel l of the material available b f any, before the final case by the Disciplinary so require that where the harge or charges as not d and the Disciplinary gree with the findings of asons of disagreement of with the findings of the furnished to the charged uiry report so that he can resentation. The above established and widely of the above procedure, untenanced under any rule of Railway ppeal) Rules, 1968 cast a e Appellate Authority to laid down under Railway Appeal) Rules, 1968 have ot in the case and pass ngly. speaking orders g reasoned and speaking linary, Appellate and can hardly be over and speaking order not sion on the merits of the procedural aspects of the re also duly addressed.” ls for both the parties and before this Tribunal, I have l y e t y f f e d n e y , y y a o y e s g d r t e e d e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench conside conclus 6.1 6.2 6.3

ered the matter in its entire sions: The main issue which arises fo penalty imposed upon the Authority and subsequently Authority is legally sustainable From the materials available charge-sheet dated 19.11.2014 applicant on the basis of the r Divisional Safety Officer, Son copy of the said report was along with the charge-she respondents that there was report cannot be accepted in the present case, particularly w basis of the allegations agains the material relied upon by applicant of an effective oppo The principles of natural jus must be given access to the against him so that he may pro It further appears that the a reply to the charge-sheet allegations levelled against circumstances in which the applicant had also raised the i given to him by the Station M the oral directions received Disciplinary Authority, whil 03.01.2015, has not dealt with the applicant in his reply. substantially repeated the charge-sheet without recordin to why the explanation furnis acceptable. A mere repetition o ety and arrived at following or consideration is whether the applicant by the Disciplinary y upheld by the Appellate e. on record, it appears that the 4/25.11.2014 was issued to the report submitted by the Senior nepur. However, admittedly, a not supplied to the applicant eet. The contention of the no requirement to attach the the facts and circumstances of when the said report formed the st the applicant. Non-supply of y the authorities deprived the ortunity to submit his defence. stice require that an employee relevant material relied upon operly defend himself. applicant submitted a detailed on 04.12.2014, denying the t him and explaining the incident had occurred. The issue regarding the instructions Master and his compliance with over telephone. However, the le passing the order dated h the material points raised by The order appears to have allegations contained in the ng any independent reasons as shed by the applicant was not of the allegations in the charge- g e y e e e r a t e e f e f e . e n d e e e s h e d y e e s t - Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.4 6.5 6.6

sheet cannot be treated as defence submitted by the empl I also find substance in the co the Disciplinary Authority ha 3.77(4) of the General and Su the penalty, although the said mentioned in the charge-sheet be informed clearly about the which he was alleged to ha effectively defend himself. Hol basis of a provision which was charge-sheet, without giving h his position in that regard, is proceedings are required to transparent manner and the surprise at the stage of passing Another important aspect of t had specifically raised the iss dated 15.01.2014 and the inst Master. These were relevant responsibility of the applic derailment. However, there is the Disciplinary Authority ex holding the applicant guilty. Th to demonstrate that the defen considered in its proper proceedings, the authority is accept the allegations made in required to examine the circumstances before arriving So far as the order passed concerned, I find that the appl grounds in his appeal dated findings of the Disciplinary A imposed upon him. The App obligation to independently e proper consideration of the loyee. ontention of the applicant that as referred to violation of Para ubsidiary Rules while imposing d provision was not specifically

t. The applicant was required to e allegations and the provisions ave violated so that he could lding the applicant guilty on the s not specifically included in the him an opportunity to explain s not justified. The disciplinary be conducted in a fair and employee cannot be taken by g the final order. the matter is that the applicant sue of the relevant Safety Alert tructions issued by the Station t aspects for determining the cant in connection with the nothing on record to show that xamined these aspects before he respondents have also failed nce raised by the applicant was perspective. In disciplinary not expected to mechanically n the charge-sheet; rather, it is defence and the relevant at a conclusion. by the Appellate Authority is icant had raised several specific d 17.02.2015, challenging the Authority as well as the penalty ellate Authority was under an examine the grounds raised in e t a g y o s d e e n y d y t t n e e t e d s y y s t s c e y n n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.7 6.8

the appeal and consider w Disciplinary Authority were materials and whether the p However, the appellate orde disclose any meaningful consid raised by the applicant. The A upheld the order of the D dealing with the important co Such an order cannot be said order. It is well settled that an quasi-judicial powers is requ decision, particularly when th concerning the legality and co The requirement of record safeguard against arbitrary exe During the course of argument placed reliance upon Railway B 06.04.2026, relating to o disciplinary proceedings un (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, has been drawn to Rule 2( specifically emphasizes the re of the inquiry report to the ch submit his representation bef the Disciplinary Authority. T emphasized that non-observan cannot be countenanced under The aforesaid RBE further em the Railway Servants (Disciplin Appellate Authority is requi procedure prescribed under followed in the disciplinar appropriate orders accordin importance of passing reason Disciplinary, Appellate and orders are necessary not only whether the findings of the supported by the available penalty imposed was justified. er dated 09.02.2016 does not deration of the specific grounds Appellate Authority has merely Disciplinary Authority without ontentions raised in the appeal. to be a reasoned and speaking n appellate authority exercising uired to record reasons for its he appeal raises specific issues orrectness of the original order. ding reasons is an essential ercise of power. ts, the counsel for applicant has Board's RBE No. 31/2026 dated observance of procedure in nder the Railway Servants , 1968. In this regard, attention

(iii) of the said RBE, which equirement of supplying a copy harged official to enable him to fore passing the final order by The Railway Board has clearly nce of the prescribed procedure r any circumstances. mphasizes that, under Rule 22 of ne and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the ired to examine whether the the said Rules has been duly ry proceedings and to pass ngly. It also highlights the ed and speaking orders by the Revisionary Authorities. Such for proper consideration of the e e . t s y t . g g s s . l s d n s n h y o y y e f e e y s e e h e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.9 6.10 6.11

merits of the case but also t requirements of disciplinary complied with. In the present case, the significance because the app several grounds in his reply to his appeal. However, the ord Authority does not reflect prop submitted by the applicant, wh also failed to deal with the appeal. He has passed a ju that no new facts are th Disciplinary Authority is passing a reasoned and sp formality; rather, it is an decision-making. By no stret order of the Appellate Authori and speaking order. The procedural principles reit the extent that they reflect proper consideration of the de orders under the Railway Ser Rules, 1968. These requirem principles of natural justice an making. Considering the facts and circ entirety, I am of the conside proceedings suffered from ser The non-supply of the mater charge-sheet, non-consideratio by the applicant, reliance upo mentioned in the charge-shee one-line non-speaking appella that the applicant was not opportunity to defend him therefore, cannot be sustain to ensure that the procedural proceedings have been duly aforesaid principles assume plicant had specifically raised o the charge-sheet as well as in der passed by the Disciplinary per consideration of the defence hile the Appellate Authority has specific grounds raised in the ust one-line order that says here so the order of the upheld. The requirement of eaking order is not a mere essential requirement of fair tch of argument this one-line ity can be termed as a reasoned terated therein are relevant to the requirements of fairness, efence and passing of reasoned rvants (Discipline and Appeal) ments are also inherent in the nd fair administrative decision- cumstances of the case in their ered view that the disciplinary rious procedural irregularities. ial relied upon for issuing the on of the explanation submitted on a provision not specifically et and the passing of a cryptic ate order cumulatively establish afforded a fair and effective mself. The impugned orders, ned in the eyes of law. The l y e d n y e s e s e f e r e d o , d ) e - r y . e d y c h e , e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.12

pk/- respondents' contention that were duly considered is no recorded in the respective orde In view of the foregoing discu the impugned charge 19.11.2014/25.11.2014 (Annex 03.01.2015 passed by the Dis A-3) and the appellate order d

5) are not sustainable in law an set aside. Consequently, the O The applicant shall be entitle monetary benefits in accorda after due adjustment of any There shall be no order as to co

(Ku

the representation and appeal ot supported by the reasons ers. ssions and findings, I hold that e memorandum dated xure A-1), the order dated sciplinary Authority (Annexure dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure A- nd are accordingly quashed and riginal Application is allowed. d to consequential service and ance with the applicable rules, amount already paid to him. ost. umar Rajesh Chandra)

Member (A)

l s t d d e - d . d , . ) Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI