AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicant (since deceased) is challenging the chargesheet dated 27.10.2017/04.11.2014 (Annexure A-1) and the orders of punishment inflicted on him.
Brief facts of the case are that while working on the post of Loco Pilot (Goods), the applicant was served with a major penalty chargesheet under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1966 alleging that while working on the post of Loco Pilot in CCC/Loco/BMY on 16.08.2014 in Train No.N/Box 339 with Loco No.31319/WAG-9/GMO, he has passed through Tilda Station at 10:55 hours and overshot the DN IBH Signal at on position. The applicant denied the charges by preferring a representation. However, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the enquiry thereby appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer, vide it’s report dated 25.12.2014 (Annexure A-6) held the charges proved against the applicant. The applicant submitted his written brief to the enquiry report. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without accepting the defence putforth by the applicant, has inflicted the punishment of removal of service with all benefits, pension and gratuity vide order dated 02/14.01.2015. In appeal, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure A-3) modified the punishment of removal to reversion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/-and the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement has been declared as ‘dies non’. The applicant thereafter filed a revision petition before the Revisionary Authority. However, the Revisionary Authority has rejected the revision petition vide order dated 18.03.2010.
The applicant submits that as per the Accident Manual, 2014 (Second Edition), the ‘Signal Passing at Danger’ excludes ‘Passing of IBS Signal’. Thus, the charge relating to passing of IBS signal does not constitute misconduct and hence the entire enquiry proceedings stand vitiated.
In their reply, the respondents have stated that the train which was having 100% Break Power loded with 58 Box NHL+1 BVZ without stopping was driven by the applicant. He failed to stop and overshot Tilda Station DN IBH between Tilda and Hathband Station on 16.08.2014. Immediately after the incident, a fact finding enquiry was conducted by four senior subordinate officials, who have submitted their comprehensive and detailed report on 21.08.2014 (Annexure R-2). According to the report, the accident occurred due to disregarding and overshooting the Red Signal at DN IBH. Accordingly, a chargesheet was served to the applicant on 27.10.2014/04.11.2014 under Rule 9. The explanation of the applicant against the charge memorandum was not found satisfactory and a detailed enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and going through the enquiry report, passed a reasoned order imposing punishment of removal from service. However, the said punishment was Central Administrative Tribunalmodified by the Appellate Authority thereby reinstating the applicant to the initial pay of Assistant Loco Pilot. The applicant was given ample opportunities to defend himself. Since he has disregarded and overshot the danger signal, the penalties imposed on him are proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has been repeatedly explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, wherein it has been held as under:
“Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion 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 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. Adequacy of evidence of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefore, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evident. 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 that case.”
In Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“10.Lord Greene said in 1948 in the famous Wednesbury case2 that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. He said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were consistently followed in the UK and in India to judge the validity of administrative action. It is equally well known that in 1983, Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service3 (called “CCSU case”) summarized the principles of judicial review of administrative action as based upon one or the other of the following viz. illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationally.”
[see: 2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223]
[3.1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)]
In the matter of judicial review relating to the administrative decision of awarding punishment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.G. Soni, 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1568 held as under:
“14.The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case3, the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.”
[see: 3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223
The only question to be examined is whether the Inquiry Officer arrived at his finding in the enquiry report based on the evidence or on some extraneous material like on his own ipsi dixit. When an Inquiry Officer is entrusted with the power to hold an inquiry or to reach a finding on fact, it is not for the Tribunal to sit as judge over such finding or conclusion. But the law requires that such finding must be based on some evidence. The Tribunal is not expected to examine the adequacy of the evidence because neither the technical rules of proof of fact nor evidence as defined in the Evidence Act is applicable to the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, if the Inquiry Officer accepts the evidence adduced and his conclusions receive support there from, the Disciplinary Authority is justified in accepting the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer that the charged employee is guilty of the charge. This is the law laid down by the Apex Court in a three judges Bench decision in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra).
In the instant case, on perusal of the enquiry file, we find that the material witnesses have been examined thoroughly both by the respondents and by the applicant by way of cross examination. We find no material to come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer was relying on some extraneous material like his own personal knowledge of the things. It is also evident from the order dated 02/14.01.2015 (Annexure A-2) that during the course of enquiry, the applicant has accepted the charges. We are of the considered view that though the Disciplinary Authority was not so verbiage or eloquent in his conclusions, he had adequately taken note of the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority, while taking a lenient view has already moderated the Central Administrative Tribunalpunishment.
On going through the records of this case, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity for defending his case and also that the rules of procedure for conducting enquiry have been scrupulously followed. We find that the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as the Revisionary Authority have not relied on any materials extraneous to the records of the enquiry. We feel that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, which has been modified by the Appellate Authority is commensurate the gravity of the misconduct. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the punishment awarded to the applicant.
In the result, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.