Jaya Prakash Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

“I. Quash the Appeal Advice Dated 10/04/2023 bearing No H/P 88/1/2017/JK/59 Annexure A1 passed by Respondent No 3.

II. Consequently, Quash the Order of Revising Authority dated 05/10/2023 bearing No SWR/P/HQ.227/RK/UBL Annexure A2 passed by RA Respondent No 2.

III. Consequently Quash the Order of Disciplinary Authority dt 06.07.2017 imposing the penalty of ‘REMOVAL FROM SERVICE with immediate effect without compassionate allowances bearing No. H/M.348/I/ALP/Sept 2016/1739/SPAD ANNEXURE A4 passed by DA Respondent No 4.

IV. Grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant including cost of this proceedings.

V. And issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the interest of Justice.”

“(5.1) The Applicant submits that without prejudice to the grounds submitted in the OA No. 932/2019 which were taken cognizance by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dt. 05.12.2022, the applicant submits the following grounds;

a) NON-CONSIDERATION OF FIRST IO REPORT CONDUCTED BY R.M RATHOD

It is submitted that, in the Inquiry report of Loco Pilot, the IO categorically mentions at page 10 "However, this SPAD happened not because of poor engineman ship or mismanagement or carelessness attitude of engine crew. The LP has a very good track record, his performance on line were judged as excellent. There are no past histories about his involvement in any unusual". The IO has also mentioned about the other contributory factors like poor visibility of home signal, series of S curve, steepness, trailing load etc for signal passing at danger. The Second accident enquiry committee has failed to look into the first IO report.

b) IGNORANCE OF SIMILAR SIGNAL DEFECTS

It is submitted that, similar signal defects has been reported at Londa Station on 17-12-2015, 21-07-2015, 29-06-2015 and 1-12-2012, there is no detailed enquiry on these issues, at the outset it has held as signal failure and no preventive or corrective action has been taken on the failures.

It is submitted that, In the recent such instance the goods train rammed into a stationary goods train at the Singhpur station on the Bilaspur-Katni section of the South East Central Railway (SECR) in Madhya Pradesh on 19-04-2023, killing one loco pilot and injuring five railway staff is suspected to be of signal overshoot which lead to derailment off 9 wagons due to signal defect.

(5.2) THE APPLICANT DID NOT FAIL IN PERFORMING HIS DUTIES.

The AA failed to take into account the fact that the applicant in fact did perform his assigned duties. The AA recorded in his earlier penalty advise order that THE DUTY OF APPLICANT AS ALP IS ONLY APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY BRAKES WHICH THE APPLICANT IN FACT DID. HENCE THERE IS NO FAILURE BY THE APPLICANT.

It is to submit that the defined/ prescribed/ assigned Responsibility/ duty of the Applicant as Assistant Loco Pilot is firstly to call out the signal aspect immediately on visibility and repeat the same till the LP act in accordance with the indication of the signal and secondly that if the next signal is a stop signal and the LP is not controlling the train to stop, then he shall apply emergency brakes. In the present circumstances it is proved that the Applicant has called out and continue to repeat the signal aspect of the distant signal which was first visible to the LP due to curve. While the train was approaching the Home signal, the Applicant first noticed the Home signal as danger instead of caution (in accordance with the aspect of the Distant Signal being Attention) and immediately not only called out and repeated the Home Signal aspect as Danger but also APPLIED EMERGENCY BRAKES FROM HIS SIDE. These facts have been proved beyond doubt. The LP in Ans. to Q. no.110 deposed that "Distant Signal first sighted by me (LP) and called out, further ALP (Applicant) acknowledged and repeated the signal". In Ans. to Q. no. 120 the LP deposed that "Since the ALP was alert, immediately he (Applicant) applied D1 emergency as soon as home sighted as danger". The Applicant did not fail to perform his assigned duties. The Train could not be stopped before the Home signal since the alignment of track was on curve and steep 1 in 100 gradient and the trailing load was 5325 tonnes. So far as the Applicant is concerned he did perform his duties firstly by calling out and secondly repeating the signal aspects and applying the emergency brakes without any deviation. However the I.O. has proved the charges against the proved facts and evidence, hence the I.O's report is void ad initio and the penal actions are as such are void and deserves to be set aside to uphold justice.

(5.3) The AA has failed perform its duty under Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 which are extracted herewith for ready reference of the Hon'ble Tribunal;

Rule 22 (2):- "in case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties in Rule 6…… the appellate authority SHALL CONSIDER;

(a)

Whether the procedure laid down: in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the constitution or in failure of justice;

(b)

Whether the findings of disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record:

Non-Compliance the above provisions by AA: Is submitted that these provisions under Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 are mandatory in as much as this rule imposes a statutory duty upon the AA by use of the words 'SHALL CONSIDER'.

The Rule envisages compliance of the Constitutional provisions (Article 311-giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges). The applicant has pleaded before the Inquiry Officer during the enquiry, that the author the fact-finding report based on which charges are made was neither cited as a witness nor allowed when requested during the course of enquiry. This fact has been recorded in the enquiry proceedings in answer to question no. 229 during general examination of the CE by IO. The 1.0 without addressing the issue has given his ruling that "As far the DAR inquiry proceedings have been completed, hence you are requested to submit your defense plea 'today itself’ to close the file. Which is against spirit of the constitutional provision of article 311 (2) and against principles of natural justice. The I.O on completion of the enquiry has to give opportunity to the applicant to file 'written brief' as per Sub-Rule 22 of Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, thus it envisages reasonable time to be given for filing the written brief. Where enquiry was completed on 15.06.2017 in the afternoon and the I.O directed the applicant to file the defense plea on the very same, that is before evening giving few hours' time to file defense plea, thus there is manifested violation of not only the Rule 9 (22) but also against principles of natural justice and the constitutional provisions. The AA albeit pleaded failed to take note of fundamental violation by the IO resulting in failure of justice.

The non-compliance of this rule has been taken cognisance of by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its order in OA No. 932/2019 dt. 05.12.2022. Again, the AA has once again failed to perform its statutory duty on the appeal in compliance of this Hon'ble Tribunal's order dt 05.12.2022, which is evident from the impugned order of the AA dt. 10.04.2023, Annexure - A 1.

(5.4) NONCOMPLINACE OF HON'BLE CAT ORDER

a)

It is submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 05.12.2022 at para 11 categorically mentioned "The orders passed by both the appellate and Revisional authority are non-speaking orders, which have not been passed after taking into consideration of specific points raised by the applicant in his appeal or representation, and deserve to be set aside". However, the Appellate Authority and RA has once again passed non speaking order without considering the points raised by the applicant during the course of Inquiry.

b)

It is submitted that the applicant in his appeal extracted the observations of this Hon'ble Tribunal (Annexure A 3) Hon'ble CAT/Bangaluru by order dt. 05.12.2022 while setting aside the order of AA and RA held at para 10 and 11 as under;

"PARA 10. In the course of representation made before the Appellate Authority, the applicant had raised many specific points, relating to the enquiry, inter-alia including the following:

•

He was not allowed to examine the defense witnesses, which is evident from the D&AR inquiry proceedings.

•

He was not heard in person by the Disciplinary Authority before taking a decision, although he had requested for the same.

•

Before the commencement of D&AR inquiry, the authors of the fact-finding report were neither enlisted as witness nor examined, before establishing the charges.

•

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Loco Pilot/LW-1 and the eye witness to this incident had affirmed that while approaching Londa Station, distant signal was in "ATTENTION" aspect, but Home, signal was seen as "DANGER" deviating from its assigned aspect of caution.

•

Shri Noor Basha Shaik, Sr. Goods Guard/HPT (LW-2) in his disposition clearly affirmed that Loco Pilot had reported the aspect of Distant signal as 'ATTENTION' with him through walkie-talkie. He had also stated that he is aware of earlier similar signal failure cases occurring at that station.

•

Shri Prasanth Kumar Soni, LW-4 had admitted that the data logger report is not an authentic document submitted in the D&AR inquiry.

•

The Inquiry Officer was not allowing the applicant to cross examine the witnesses, the witnesses, even not allowing him to ask important questions, which were relevant to prove his innocence as well as not ready to accept a valuable document, which was relevant to prove his innocence.

•

The Disciplinary Authority had been requested for personal hearing before taking a decision and the same was not allowed.

•

PARA 11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 01.8.2017 vide which the appeal of the applicant had been disposed of, as well as the orders dated 21.6.2018 vide which the revision petition has been disposed of, reveal, that these orders have been passed without taking into consideration the specific points raised by the applicant in his appeal as well as in his revision petition. The orders passed by both the Appellant Authority and Revision Authority are non-speaking orders, which have not been passed after taking into consideration the specific points raised by the applicant in his appeal or representation, and deserve to be set aside."

c)

The applicant beg to submit that both the AA and RA are prejudiced against the applicant for approaching Hon'ble Tribunal-in as much as the applicant being Asst. Loco Pilot has not violated any rule:

It is to submit that the duty of the Loco Pilot is to be in charge of the locomotive and it is the duty of the Loco Pilot to observe all the rules relating to the driving including starting and stopping of the trains and observation of speed restrictions if any notified. The duty of the Asst. Loco Pilot is to keep a whistle repeat the speed restrictions, repeat the aspects of the signal as soon as it is visible which is co-extended to the Loco Pilot to observe the speed restrictions at the notified stretch of the line, acknowledge the aspect of the signals repeated by the Asst. Loco Pilot loudly. In case the Loco Pilot is not performing his duties, then the Asst. Loco Pilot need to apply emergency brakes. In the present case both the enquiry reports established that the emergency brakes were applied, which unequivocally established the fact that the Asst. Loco Pilot / the applicant did apply the emergency brakes and performed his part of the duty, thus there is no violation by the applicant. This fact is recorded in the enquiry proceedings, but the D.A. has failed to take note of the same.

However, the AA in his earlier penalty advise dt. 01.08.2017 (which this Hon'ble Tribunal has set aside vide judgement /order dt 05.12.2022) at para 3 unambiguously stated that "Loco pilot is in charge of locomotive and execution of all loco operation is his primary responsibility. An ALP is left only with responsibility to apply brake during emergency". Copy of the said order is submitted marked as Annexure - A5.

The applicant was ALP with only secondary responsibility of applying brake during emergency, the applicant submits that even as per the records of the inquiry it was proved that the applicant did apply emergency brake immediately on seeing the Home signal in 'danger' aspect, the applicant has evidently performed his duties. However, the AA, albeit took cognisance of it in his earlier penalty order, but still imposed the penalty.

Even in response to the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal also did not take that material fact which lead to denial of justice and the RA did not take this into consideration and confirmed the earlier penalty.

Both the AA and RA also erred in evaluating the evidence. Thus, the findings of the E.O and the consequent action of imposing the severe penalty in a situation where there is no violation of any rule did not comply the observation and orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal. On these grounds alone the orders of the AA and the RA are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.”

“ 1. The Applicant begs to submit that this application is in consequence of non-compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 05.12.2022 in O.A. 932 of 2019. For ready reference and brevity, it is submitted as under;

2.

The Applicant begs to submit that he was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) in Hubli division of South Western Railway on 22.01.2014. He has been working as ALP/ goods since 22.1.2014 with a clear record of unblemished, dedicated and immaculate service in SW. Railway fill the impugned incident on 18 December 2015

3.

On 18.12.2015 the Applicant worked as ALP/Goods Train. No. PSJT 131 from Castle Rock. The train left Tineghat station at 1730 hours While approaching the next Station that is Londa, Applicant noticed the Distant Signal was in 'ATTENTION' Aspect (showing two yellow lights) indicating to the loco pilot to proceed and be prepared to PASS NEXT SIGNAL at restricted speed as prescribed by special instructions Train is being received either on main line and is required to stop at the starter signal or to pass run through via loop line'. The Applicant called out the Distant Signal aspect which was also noticed and repeated by the Loco Pilot Duly guided by the 'Attention' aspect of 'Distant signal' the Loco Pilot started controlling the train so as to pass the next signal at restricted speed as per the rules. Whereas when the Applicant came across the Home Signal at Danger instead of caution. The visibility is only about 250 meters it was on curve, up-gradient and the trailing load was 5352 tonnes (maximum load). The Applicant immediately applied emergency brakes along with the Loco Pilot and stopped after passing the Home signal for a distance of two locos and one wagon. It is to submit that in such circumstances the duty of the applicant as Assistant Loco Pilot is to assist the Loco Pilot by applying the emergency brakes, which duty was religiously performed by the applicant.

4.

A fact-finding Accident enquiry was conducted by junior Scale officers and based on which the Divisional Mechanical Engineer/Power issued charge memorandum dated 01.02.2016 and an Inquiry under Rule 9 of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 (here in after referred to as D&A Rules) was conducted. The Inquiry Officer (herein after referred to as 1.0) submitted his report. However, the Disciplinary Authority (hereafter referred to as D.A) on 29.7.2016 withdrawn the proceedings, without providing the copy of the Inquiry Officer's report.

5.

Further one more fact-finding Accident Enquiry committee consisting of JA grade officers conducted enquiry and based on that report a fresh charge memorandum dated 22.09.2016 was issued and a fresh 1.0 has conducted the inquiry under Rule 9 of D&A Rules 1968 who has proved the articles of charges.

6.

The D.A by the impugned penalty order dated 06.07.2017 has imposed a penalty of 'REMOVAL FROM SERVICE with immediate effect without compassionate allowances'.

7.

The Applicant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority (herein after referred to as A.A), and the A.A. vide order dated 01.08.2017 reduced the penalty of 'REMOVAL FROM SERVICE with immediate effect without compassionate allowances' to "reduction of pay from Rs 24,500 to Rs. 23,100 in level 2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2% years with the effect of postponing future increment, without any restoration and without any regard to his past service. The intervening period from the date of removal to reinstatement is treated as dies-non subject to his passing Psycho Test."

8.

The Applicant submitted revision petition to the Revising Authority (herein after referred as R.A.), by non-speaking order dated 21.06.2018 "UPHELD" the penalty imposed by the A.A.

9.

Further the Applicant submitted a review petition dated 08.01.2019 to the General Manager to review the penalty and render justice, however by letter dated 08.02.2019 it was advised that the "General Manager has ordered to close the issue".

10 Being aggrieved by the orders of the DA, AA and the R.A and General Manager the Applicant had approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Original Application No 932/2019. By the order dated 05.12.2022 this Hon'ble Tribunal after hearing both the parties was pleased to set aside the orders of Appellate Authority dated 01.08 2017 and Revisionary Authority dated 21.06.2018 and the matter was remanded back to Appellate Authority to reconsider the claim of the Applicant by providing opportunity of hearing to the Applicant

11.

In pursuance of the Hon'ble Tribunals order dated 05. 12.2022, applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 15.03.2023 to Appellate Authority for reconsideration of Appeal Advice order dated 01.08.2017. However, the AA. by order dated 10.04.2023 was pleased to affirm the earlier order without any modifications and also not complied with the directions of this Hon'ble CAT order in O.A. 932/2019 Dt. 05.12.2022 and also not complied with the Rule 22 of RS (DA) Rules, 1968, though the applicant expressly submitted in his representation in detail dated 15.03.2023.

12.

Aggrieved by the AA order dated 10.04.2023, Applicant further submitted representation dated 28.04.2023 to Revisionary Authority (RA). Rule 25 (3) "an application for revision shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these Rules". The RA by its order dated 05/10/2023 without considering the merits and plea of applicant mechanically, in disregard to the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal and Rule 25(3) of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 and without application of mind UPHELD the orders of the AA. and failed in performing its statutory duty.”

“10.

In the course of representation made before the Appellate Authority, the applicant had raised many specific points, relating to the enquiry, inter-alia including the following:

11.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 01.8.2017 vide which the appeal of the applicant had been disposed of, as well as the orders dated 21.6.2018 vide which the revision petition has been disposed of, reveal, that these orders have been passed without taking into consideration the specific points raised by the applicant in his appeal as well as in his revision petition. The orders passed by both the Appellant Authority and Revision Authority are non-speaking orders, which have not been passed after taking into consideration the specific points raised by the applicant in his appeal or representation, and deserve to be set aside.

12.

Accordingly, the present OA is partly allowed and the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure A-17), as well as the orders of the Revisionary Authority dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure A-20) are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the claim of the applicant and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, in an expedite manner in any event not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

13.

Accordingly, OA stands disposed of in terms of the above. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.”

(Through CCC/NIL)

अपील सूचना सं Appeal Advice No. 17/2023

िवषय/Sub: Appeal against penalty of "Reduction of Pay"

संदभᭅ/Ref: 1) Penalty order No.H/M.348/I/ALP/Sept 2016/1739/SPAD, Dtd: 06.07.2017

2)

O.A.No.932/2019 Filed before Hon'bl Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Order Dtd.05.12.2022.

In due compliance of the orders of Hon'bl Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench Bengaluru dated 05.12.2022, the undersigned as AA & DRM/UBL has carefully considered along with relevant records under Rule No.22 (2) of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968, and proceed to pass the following:

The employee Shri. Jayprakash Kumar (CE)was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and he has submitted a representation dated 15.03.2023, which the undersigned has gone through in detail.

Whereas, the penalty imposed by the DA & DME/P/UBL which was modified by the AA and DRM/UBL by modifying the penalty of "Removal from service" imposed vide penalty order cited above, which is now reduced to that of Reduction of pay from Rs.24,500/- to Rs.23, 100/- in Level-2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2½ years, with effect of postponing future increment, without any restoration and without any regard to his past service". The intervening period from date of removal to reinstatement is treated as 'Dies-Non' subject to his passing Psycho Test" and further the employee Shri. Jayprakash Kumar has filed revision petition before RA & COM/UBL who has upheld the orders of AA.

Whereas, the undersigned has now considered the representation of the employee Shri. Jayprakash Kumar (CE) dated 15.03.2023 and having gone through the representation find that the employee Shri Jayprakash Kumar (CE) is submitting certain facts which are matters to be raised during the course of the Inquiry and the employee Shri. Jayprakash Kumar (CE) was afforded all reasonable opportunities during the inquiry to cross examine the prosecution witness and bring out the facts.

The undersigned having gone through the inquiry procedures and findings of the Inquiry Officer, I am satisfied that the employee is involved in this serious misconduct of Signal Passing At Danger (SPAD).

Whereas, the undersigned has thoroughly gone into the facts leading through the DA and that the employee is involved in SPAD which is serious concern in view of public Safety. If the relaxation is given to the employee, it leads to relaxation to working rules of the Crew (LP & ALP). This may endanger the safety of the public and cause consequential accident leading to loss of public life, grievous injuries to the public and also loss of public property.

The undersigned, keeping in view of above facts and circumstances consider it fit and appropriate that the penalty of “Removal from service” imposed vide penalty order cited above, which is now “reduced to that of reduction of pay from Rs. 24,500/- to Rs. 23,100/- in level 2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2 ½ years, with effect of postponing future increment”, without any restoration and without any regard to his past service” to Shri Jayprakash Kumar is adequate on humanitarian ground.

Accordingly, the penalty of “Removal from service” imposed vide penalty order cited above, which is now reduced to that of reduction of pay from 24,500/- to Rs. 23,100/- in level 2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2 ½ years with effect of postponing future increment”, without any restoration without any regard to past service.

3)

Any revision petition against these orders lies to PCOM/SWR provided that,

a)

The revision petition is submitted through proper channel within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

b)

The revision petition does not contain any disrespectful or improper language and Submitted to the authority against whose orders the revision petition lies.

Please acknowledge receipt of this order.”

“Whereas Shri Jayaprakash Kumar, while functioning as APL/UBL/SWR was imposed with a major penalty "Removed from Railway Service with Immediate effect without compassionate allowances" by Disciplinary Authority & DME(Power)/UBL No. H/M 348/I/ALP/Sept. 2016/1739/SPAD, dated 06.07.2017 vide Penalty advice

Whereas, the Appellate Authority i.e. DRM/UBL on consideration of the Appeal of charged employee had 'modified' the penalty to that of "Reduction of pay from Rs.24,500/- to 23,100/- in Level-2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2% years, with effect of postponing future Increment, without any restoration and without any regard to his past service. The intervening period from date of removal to reinstatement is treated as Dies-non subject to this passing Psycho Test vide Appeal Advice No. H/P.90//I/2017/JK/59, dated 01.08.2017.

Whereas the said Shri Jayaprakash Kumar, submitted the Revision Petition dated 26.12.2017 to the then Revision Authority and therefore on consideration of the Revision petition dated 26.12.2017, In terms of Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the then Revision Authority had "Confirmed" the penalty vide Order No.SWR/P/HQ.227/JPK/UBL, dated 21.06.2018.

While so, Shri Jayaprakash Kumar, ALP/UBL/SWR has approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengalure and filed an O.A. No. 170/00932/2019 against the disciplinary action. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengalure passed the following Order dated 12.01.2023:-

The orders of the Appellate Authority vide Appeal Advice No.H/P.90/VI/2017/JK/59, 01.08.2017, as well as the order of the Revision Authority & PCOM/SWR issued vide o No.SWR/P/HQ.227/JPK/UBL, dated 21.06.2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appe Authority to reconsider the claim of the applicant and take an appropriate decision in accordance law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, in an expedite manner in any ever later than twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Taking the cognizance of orders of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengalure. O.Α. No. 170/00932/2019 dated 05.12.2022, the Appellate Authority & DRM/UBL had afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the Charged employee(Shri Jayaprakash Kumar), ALP/UBL/SWR and Charged employee has submitted a representation dated 15.03.2023, and after considering all the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Authority & DRM/UBL had imposed the penalty of "Reduction of pay from Rs.24,500/- to 23,100/- in Level-2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2 years, with effect of postponing future increment, without any restoration and without any regard to his past service", vide Appeal Advice No. H/P.88/VI/2017/JK/59, dated 10.04.2023.

WHEREAS, the said Shri Jayaprakash Kumar, submitted a Revision Petition dated 28.04.2023 to the undersigned and now therefore, on consideration of the Revision Petition dated 28.04.2023 in terms of Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the undersigned being the Revising Authority passes the following orders:-

"DRM/UBL on the direction of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengalure has re-considered the petition of the applicant by providing an opportunity of hearing the employee in person. Based on the personal hearing the AA(DRM/UBL) has confirmed imposition of penalty of 'Reduction of pay from Rs.24,500/- to 23,100/-in Level-2 of pay matrix, for a period of 2% years, with effect of postponing future increment'.

With the above order the direction of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengalure has been complied with & no further review is warranted. Not-withstanding the same, I have gone through the petition submitted by the employee Shri Jayaprakash Kumar(ALP) dated 28.04.2023. The petition does not have any new facts other than seeking review on the ground of mercy.

PCOM/SWR as RA has already applied his mind & confirmed the earlier order passed by the AA.

I have again gone through the Revision petition, Inquiry report and find no reason to revise the order issued by the AA conveyed to the employee through Appeal Advice No.17/2023 date 10.04.2023 of imposition of penalty of reduction of pay from Rs.24,500 to Rs.23,100 in level-2 of pay matrix for a period of 2 years with effect of postponing future increment.

Accordingly the revision petition is disposed duly confirming the above order passed by the AA. The punishment awarded by the AA(DRM/UBL) stands good."

Accordingly, the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority & DRM/UBL vide Appeal Advice No.H/P.88/VI/2017/JK/59, dated 10.04.2023 is now 'UPHELD'.

Shri Jayaprakash Kumar, ALP/UBL/SWR, is required to acknowledge the receipt of this order.

Order: