AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delivered by: Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is being decided at this stage itself.
The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant, seeking following reliefs:
“A) To issue an order or direction calling for the records and quashing the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 13.10.2025 issued by respondent no.5. (Annexure A-1).
B) To issue an order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Penalty Order dated 17.11.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4. (Annexure A-2).
C) To issue an order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Appellate Order dated 09.01.2026 and Revisional Order dated 22.05.2026 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 2, respectively. (Annexure A-3&4).
D) To issue an order commanding the Respondents to restore the wrongfully withheld increments of the Applicant with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and statutory interest.
E) To issue an order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
F) To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”
It is apparent from the instant Original Application that the applicant is presently discharging his duties as Technician-1 (Electrical) at the Loco Trip Shed, Agra Cantt. Thereafter, a charge memorandum dated 13.10.2025 (Standard Form No. 11) was issued by respondent-5 alleging therein that the applicant instigated co-workers against the administration, obstructed the work of the trip shed and committed acts of indiscipline such as misbehaving with supervisors. As per the applicant the said allegations were based on an internal letter dated 07.10.2025 and the applicant was accused of violating Rule-3-1(ii) and (iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The applicant thereafter filed his reply on 03.11.2025 denying the charges levelled against him. Furthermore, the applicant also annexed formal declaration dated 03.11.2025 signed by 28 of his co-workers.
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 17.11.2025 imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 03 years without cumulative effect. The applicant filed his appeal on 06.12.2025. The said appeal was rejected vide order of the Appellate Authority dated 09.01.2026. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed his Revision Appeal on 09.02.2026. However, the said revision was also rejected on 22.05.2026 affirming the punishment order. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondents have proceeded his case violating the procedure for imposing minor penalties.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was issued memorandum on 13.10.2025 stating therein that he had committed acts of indiscipline including inciting co-workers against the administration, obstructing the work and misbehaved with the supervisors, which were against the rule 3-1 (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966. The applicant was also given opportunity to file his representation within 10 days. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply on 03.11.2025. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 17.11.2025 imposing the penalty of withholding of increment for three years without cumulative effect. However, the applicant was given opportunity to file his appeal, if he is aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, within 45 days from the receipt of the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant portion of the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 17.11.2025 is quoted as under:
श्री तबिश बेग टैक्नीशियन। (ट्रिप शेड) आगरा
(द्वारा: वरि खण्ड अभियंता/ आगरा) विषय: आरोप पत्र ज्ञापन संख्या ई-308/उमरे/आछा/परि/2025/66 दिनांक 13.10.2025
अधोहस्ताक्षरकर्ता कर्मचारी की प्रतिवेदना एवं फाइल पर उपलब्ध सभी दस्तावेजों के अध्ययन करने के उपरान्त कर्मचारी पर लगाये गये सभी आरोपों के लिये उन्हें उत्तरदायी मानता हूँ। शेड में कार्यरत सहायक व टेक्नीशियन के हस्ताक्षर कराने मात्र से उनके द्वारा जे.ई. व पर्यवेक्षक से की गयी अभद्रता की अनदेखी नहीं की जा सकती।
अतः उनके जवाब से संतुष्ट न होने के कारण उन्हें दोषी मानते हुए उन पर "3 वर्ष की वेतन वृद्धि (असंचयी प्रभाव से WIT) जब भी देय हो" रोकने की शास्ति अधिरोपित करता हूँ।
(2)रेल सेवक (अनुशासन और अपील) नियम, 1968 के नियम 18 और 19 के अधीन इस आदेश के विरुद्ध अपर मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक (इन्फा), आगरा से अपील की जा सकती है।
(3)अपील आपको अपने नाम से करनी होगी और इस पर स्वयं हस्ताक्षर करना होगा। ऐसी अपील आपको यह आदेश प्राप्त होने की तारीख से 45 दिन के अन्दर अपील प्राधिकारी को प्रस्तुत करनी होगी और इसकी एक प्रति निम्न हस्ताक्षरी को भेजनी होगी।
(4)अपील अपने आप में पूर्ण होनी चाहिए और उसमें वे सभी तात्त्विक कथन और तर्क शामिल होने चाहिए जिन पर आप निर्भर करते हो और उसमें अनुचित और अशिष्ट भाषा का प्रयोग नहीं किया जाये।
(5)कृपया पावती दें।
(पवन कुमार जयन्त) जयन्त वरि०सं० विद्युत इंजी. (परि०) आगरा सक्षम प्राधिकारी का नाम एवं पदनाम
The respondents further submits that thereafter, the applicant filed his appeal before the appellate authority 06.12.2025, which was considered and rejected by the respondents vide order dated 09.01.2026, affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The relevant portion of the order of appellate authority is quoted as under:
'स्पीकिंग आर्डर
अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा आरोपित कर्मचारी श्री ताबिश बैग (पदनाम) तकनीशियन-1, वरिष्ठ खण्ड अभियन्ता/आगरा छावनी को अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी द्वारा दिनांक 13.10.2025 को जारी आरोप पत्र का अवलोकन किया, साथ ही पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी (DA) द्वारा अधिरोपित की गई शास्ति दिनांक 17.11.2025 तथा आरोपित कर्मचारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गयी अपील दिनांक 06.12.2025 एवं अपील पर अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी द्वारा दी गयी टिप्पणी गहनता पूर्वक अध्ययन किया
आरोपित कर्मचारी पर आरोप है कि:
"आप आगरा लॉबी में तकनीशियन-1 के पद पर कार्यरत हैं। लोको ट्रिपशेड, आगरा छावनी के कार्यालय द्वारा प्रस्तुत पत्र संख्या आगरा/वि.लो.दि.शे./स्टाफ/01 दिनांक 07.10.2025 के अनुसार आपके द्वारा लोको ट्रिपशेड, आगरा छावनी कार्यालय में कार्य के दौरान प्रशासन के विरुद्ध सह-कर्मचारियों को भड़काने, ट्रिपशेड के कार्य में बाधा उत्पन्न करने एवं सुपरवाइजर्स के साथ अभद्रता जैसी अनुशासनहीनता की घटनाएं घटित की गयी। अतः आपका यह कृत्य कार्य के प्रति अनुशासनहीनता को दर्शाता है। जो कि रेल सेवक आचरण नियम 1966 के नियम 3-1 का (ii) एवं (i) का उल्लंघन है।"
उपरोक्त आरोप, आरोपित कर्मचारी की अपील, अपील पर अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी की टिप्पणी एवं अन्य प्रपत्रों के अध्ययन के पश्चात स्पष्ट है कि आरोपित कर्मचारी अपने सुपरवाइजर के साथ अभद्र व्यवहार एवं आदेश का पालन न करने के आदि होने के कारण अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी द्वारा अधिरोपित की गई शास्ति "तीन वर्ष की वेतन वृद्धि (असंचयी प्रभाव से WIT) जब भी देय हो" रोकने की शास्ति को "यथावत" रखा है।"
(प्रनव कुमार) अपर मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक (इन्फ्रा.) एवं अपीलीय प्राधिकारी आगरा"
Again, the applicant filed revision on 03.04.2026, which was also considered by the respondents and the same was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2026. The relevant portion of the said order of the revision authority is quoted as under:
"श्री ताबिश बैग, तकनीशियन । ट्रिप शेड, आगरा छावनी उत्तर मध्य रेलवे आगरा।
विषय: श्री ताबिश बैग, तकनीशियन-1, ट्रिपशेड, आगरा छावनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत रिवीजन अपील दिनांक 03.04.26 में परित स्पीकिंग आदेश। संदर्भ: केस सं. ई-308/उमरे/परि/आ.अ./परि/2025/66 दि. 13.10.2025
आपकी रिवीजन अपील दिनांक 03.04.26 एवं केस फाईल का अध्ययन किया तथा मैंने पाया कि:
अनुशासनिक अधिकारी (Sr.DEE/OP/AGC) द्वारा अपने स्पीकिंग आदेश दिनांक 17.11.2025 में आरोपित कर्मचारी को "तीन वर्ष की वेतन वृद्धि (असंचयी प्रभाव से WIT) जब भी देय हो" को रोकने की शास्ति अध्यारोपित की गयी थी। तत्पश्चात अपीलीय अधिकारी (ADRM/AGC) ने भी अपने स्पीकिंग आदेश दिनांक 09.01.2026, में आपकी अपील को निरस्त करते हुए अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा दिये गये दण्ड उचित ठहराया है तथा दण्ड को यथावत रखा है। आपकी रिवीजन अपील में कोई नया तथा भी प्रकाश में नहीं लाया गया है। अतः मुझे अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा आपको दिया गया दण्ड उचित लगता है। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए मैं अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा अध्यारोपित दण्ड "तीन वर्ष की वेतन वृद्धि (असंचयी प्रभाव से WIT) जब भी देय हो" को रोकने की शास्ति को यथावत रखता हूँ।
(जीवन चन्द्र सिंह बोरा) प्रमुख मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर/ रिवीजनरी प्राधिकारी
It is settled principle of law that in Original Applications, challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry.
The Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held as under :-
"The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice".
It is apparent that the matter relates to imposition of minor penalty upon the applicant. However, as per the applicant, the rules governing procedure for imposing minor penalty were not followed. The relevant portion of the said rules is quoted as under:
"11. Procedure for imposing minor penalties -
(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-rule (9) of Rule 9 and of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10, no order imposing on a Railway servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 6 shall be made except after-
(a)informing the Railway servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Railway servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and
(e)consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case, it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made by the Railway servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension or special contribution to Provident Fund payable to the Railway servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9. before making any order imposing on the Railway servant any such penalty.
(3)Deleted…..”
It is evident that the applicant was also afforded reasonable opportunity to file his representation/reply against the orders passed by the competent authority from time to time and after consideration of his representation/replies at every stage, the punishment orders were passed as per rules. So far as the question of conducting of inquiry is concerned, it is evident from the aforesaid rules that the inquiry is conducted only when the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary and in the instant case, after considering the representation of the applicant, the punishment order was passed which has been affirmed till the stage of revisional authority.
Therefore, no interference by this Tribunal is warranted in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The instant Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.