Kamal Singh Nigwal vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Mallika Arya, AM.-

In the present original application, the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure A-2) by which penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect has been awarded to him. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure A-1) by which the appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to restore the withheld increment.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was served with a minor penalty charge sheet SF-11 dated 27.11.2020 alleging therein that while he was operating the Track Machine, he was not having the attendance register. Therefore he has violated CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22.09.2020. The applicant submitted his reply on 09.12.2020 denying the allegations (Annexure A-4). Being not satisfied with the explanation of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.12.2020 has imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the applicant has preferred an appeal dated 05.01.2021 which has been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.02.2021. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present original application.

The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the respondents have not mentioned the specific clause of CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22.09.2020 in the charge sheet or in the order dated 18.12.2020 which has been violated by the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.12.2020 has not considered the explanation given by the applicant in true spirit and has imposed the penalty without application Central Administrative Tribunal^{of mind. Even, the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal in} a judicious manner and has rejected the appeal by an unreasoned order. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned penalty order dated 18.12.2020 and appellate order dated 23.02.2021 being arbitrary, unjust and without application of mind be quashed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

The respondents have contested the OA and filed reply. Referring to the contents of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that while the applicant was working as machine in-charge of Duo-8081 on 26.11.2020, he did not produce the attendance register (Muster) during the inspection by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Track Machine). The learned counsel for the respondents has also stated that it was the duty of the applicant to keep the attendance muster at work place of machine instead of camping coach. Thus, the applicant has violated the CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22.09.2020. Since his conduct was found to be violative of Rule 3(i) (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966, he was served with a charge sheet SF-11. The learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the explanation submitted by the applicant to the charge sheet has imposed the penalty of withholding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the applicant has also been considered by the Appellate Authority which was rejected vide order dated 23.01.2021. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that since the applicant has not availed the remedy of filing of revision petition, therefore, the O.A is liable to be dismissed being premature. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has cited the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 3209/2025 – Vikas Sabharwal Vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents and the penalty imposed upon the applicant is commensurate to the offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the reliefs and the OA may be dismissed.

In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the objection raised by the respondents regarding alternative remedy of revision petition at this stage is not at all tenable as the matter is pending since 2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has also emphasized that not keeping Muster (attendance register) at track machine while working on track has been declared as a misconduct or as a violation of service condition vide order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure A-5). Before issuance of this order, there was no such condition in the CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22.09.2020. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the action of the respondents is liable to be set aside.

We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also considered the rival contentions.

It is not disputed that while the applicant was working on track machine, he did not keep the Muster (attendance register) with him for which he was found guilty of non-compliance of CTE Circular No. 4 dated 22.09.2020. This action of the applicant was found to be violative of rule 3(i)(iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966. In the CTE Circular, there was no condition that the attendance register has to be kept on track machine. Any non-compliance will be treated as violative of said Circular. Vide order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure A-5), the respondents have instructed all concerned officers to keep the Attendance Register (Muster) at the machine. From the perusal of this order, it is observed that this instruction has been issued only to avoid any kind of inconvenience during the inspection. It is noted that in the present case, the inspection took place on 26.11.2020. Keeping the attendance register (Muster) at the track machine has been made mandatory vide orders dated 29.01.2021. Thus, it is not understood as to how has the applicant violated the mandatory instruction of keeping the Attendance Register (Muster) at the machine at the time of inspection.

Further, the applicant has been charge sheeted for the violation of Rule 3(i)(iii) of Railway Servant Conduct Rules 1966. The said rules reads as under: -

Keeping in view the allegations leveled against the applicant, we find that there is no co-relation between the allegations leveled in SF-11 vis-à-vis and the aforesaid rules. There were no mandatory instructions to keep the Attendance Register (Muster) at the machine. Therefore no fault can be alleged against the applicant for not keeping the attendance register at the machine.

In view of the above, we find that while passing the order dated 18.12.2020, the disciplinary authority has not considered the points raised by the applicant in his reply. It is also noted that the Appellate Authority has also failed to appreciate the points raised by the applicant in his appeal and has rejected the same by a single stroke that the “penalty is justified”.

So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant has not availed the alternate remedy of revision is concerned, we do not find it appropriate to consider this aspect at this stage. It is to note that the OA No. 3209/2025 cited by the respondents’ counsel was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy at the admission stage itself.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the applicant has made out a case for interference. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 1015/2021 is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority are quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the withheld increment of the applicant from the due date within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.