The Union Of India & Ors. vs Binay Kumar Das

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)

Heard Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India assisted by Mr. Bindhyachal Rai and Mr. Abhinav.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed in O.A. No. 050/00470 of 2019 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby it has been pleased to allow the O.A. in following terms:

The facts giving rise to the present writ application is to the effect that the respondent/applicant while working as Senior Divisional Operating Manager at Samastipur was nominated to evaluate the papers of written examination of a selection from Group D to Group C as Goods Guard. A total of 140 candidates participated in the written examination and the answer sheets were evaluated by the respondent/applicant within 2 days, whereafter the result was published on 12.01.2015. After almost 6 months of the evaluation having been done by the respondent, the Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer/Accounts handed over a questionnaire to the respondent/applicant to which a reply was submitted.

After more than one year and eight months, a memorandum dated 08.03.2017 was issued by the General Manager, EC Railway, Hajipur/Disciplinary Authority whereby charge was imputed with allegation of incorrect evaluation with categorical findings that the result was vitiated, nonetheless the said result has been acted upon by allowing promotions to all the successful candidates. The respondent/applicant had submitted his reply requesting for exoneration, which was not accepted and a punishment order dated 05.05.2017 was passed directing for withholding of next increment of the respondent/applicant for six months without cumulative effect. An Appeal preferred by the respondent/applicant on 15.06.2017 took one and a half years to be decided and was finally rejected on 11.01.2019 by an order issued in the name of the President of India along with advice of U.P.S.C.

The respondent/applicant being aggrieved by the order of punishment and rejection of his appeal moved before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (herein after referred to as the ‘Learned C.A.T., Patna’) by filing an Original Application being O.A. No. 050/00470 of 2019 and after considering the rival contentions, the Learned C.A.T., Patna, by order dated 30.04.2025 has allowed the O.A. and set aside the order of punishment as well as the order passed in Appeal and directed for grant of all consequential benefits.

Assailing the aforesaid order passed by the Learned C.A.T, Patna, Dr. K. N. Singh, Learned A.S.G. for the petitioners submitted that instruction contained in the RBE No. 67/2014 was to be followed by the evaluator/respondent herein, which was not complied with. It has further been submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity as it has been held that the said guidelines apply in promotion from Group C to Group B posts and not in cases of promotion from Group D to Group C posts. Challenging such findings, it has been submitted that the same set of instructions is applicable to departmental selection of Group D to Group C post as well. It has next been submitted that the Learned C.A.T., Patna while passing the impugned order has not considered that over- writing / correction is not allowed for any group and instead of giving zero marks, the two candidates found to be beneficiary, were awarded full marks to that question. It has thus been submitted that the reasoning adopted in the impugned order that respondent was present as superior officer and witnessed the conversation regarding rectification of answer by candidates in classroom is wrong. It has also been submitted that rather than rendering wrong advice for correction it should have been the duty of the respondent to fairly evaluate the answers as per guidelines.

It has next been submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is due to faulty evaluation that the candidates were marked incorrectly and they became eligible for promotion and are still continuing in the promoted post. It is the outcome of this faulty evaluation that the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty on respondent which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, as also was confirmed in the advice rendered by the U.P.S.C. vide letter dated 09.11.2018.

It has lastly been submitted that the impugned order had not considered these facts and rather it has been held that chargesheet was served upon the respondent/applicant in March 2017, i.e., after 2 years at the behest of the observation of the vigilance, whereas the alleged misconduct is of January 2015, when the officials could have very well cancelled the incorrect evaluation, divested beneficiaries of the promotion and immediately proceeded against the respondent, but having not done so, the penalty imposed upon the respondent is liable to be quashed. Thus, the prayer made in this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

We find from the records of the proceedings which had taken place before the Learned C.A.T., that the respondent was nominated for evaluation of the answer sheets of Written Examination which were evaluated within 2 days and results were finalised after which all successful candidates were allowed promotions and were permitted to join their posts. Thereafter, the Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer had handed over a questionnaire to the respondent concerning the examination and reply was also submitted by him. It was contended before the Learned C.A.T., that Minor Penalty under Rule 11 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was wrongly affirmed by the Appellate Authority along with advice of U.P.S.C.. It was also contended that charge of violation of instructions was neither supplied to the respondent nor it was/is relevant as the same does not pertain to the Selection, of which he was an evaluator, since it only applies to Selection from Group C to Group B posts and not for Group D to Group C posts, as has been rightly held in the impugned order. Moreover, the U.P.S.C. advice was never given to the respondent before passing of the order by the Appellate Authority.

It was also submitted before the Learned C.A.T., Patna, by the respondent that the penalty imposed on the respondent was in excess of the bona fide evaluation made by the respondent where he himself witnessed the incident and had seen the invigilator rendering advice to candidates.

We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and pursued the materials on record. The admitted facts culling out from the submissions and the records is that the respondent/applicant, who was the evaluator had awarded one mark each to two candidates, who have been promoted but later it was detected that the marks awarded to them were not correct for the reason that two answers were given for an objective type question, which was not permissible and they should have been given zero marks. It is an admitted position that the evaluation took place in the month of January 2015 while it was in the year 2017, such evaluation being faulty, was detected by the Vigilance and then only the respondent was showcaused. It is also a fact that though the Railways have found such evaluation to be faulty and the respondent has also been punished however, the promoted candidates have not been touched nor have their promotion orders been set aside, which was passed based on such faulty evaluation.

In the background of the admitted facts, we find that the respondent/applicant had carried out the evaluation in two days evaluating 140 papers. A perusal of the reply to the charges (Annexure-4 to the O.A.) would show that the respondent has categorically stated that ‘No’ marks for any cutting, overwriting or erasing was given in any copy for objective questions. Moreover, in two copies (copy code: C-16 and D-04) candidates had written two answers of an objective type question and full marks was awarded by the respondent, which has been stated to be not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Railway Board. In answer to such charge, the respondent has submitted that since he was present during the written examination and one candidate had committed a mistake while writing the answer of an objective question and he was advised by the invigilator to write down the correct answer without cutting the previous answer, hence full mark was awarded. We may note that it has also been suggested by the authority who had forwarded the appeal of the respondent that one of the question was wrongly stated in the question paper and therefore, the said mistake could have been a bona fide mistake.

From the discussions aforesaid, we find that the charges against the respondent was not such that he had carried out large scale irregularity while awarding marks. In fact, out of total 140 candidates, only two such cases were found by the authorities and therefore, it’s ratio being very less, nothing adverse could be drawn from such granting of marks for those questions.

Having considered the charge and the reply of the respondent, we are of the view that while carrying out evaluation of such large number of answer sheets, minor errors could have been committed by an evaluator being a human being and some margin for human error ought to be granted to an evaluator. We have noted that there was no charge against the petitioner of giving undue favour or that such marks were awarded on extraneous consideration, therefore imposing of even a minor penalty is not warranted in such cases.

The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded ahead in a very mechanical manner and have not appreciated the defence of the respondent nor have given consideration to the forwarding remarks of the Chief Commercial Manager dated 15.06.2017, leave alone any finding on the factual aspect stated therein.

Having noted the shortcomings like not providing instructions to the candidates in writing, either on the question paper or on the answer booklet, in consonance with the guidelines of Railway Board as contained in RBE 29/2009, and furnishing incorrect objective question regarding code of ‘Madhepura’ Station which ought to have been ‘Dauram Madhepura’, the marks awarded to two candidates for giving two answers to objective question, materially not affecting the results of others and the copy of the guideline, as contained in RBE 67/2014, violation of which has been alleged against the respondent, having not been provided to the evaluator, it would be improper to hold the respondent guilty.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the forgoing reasons, we find that there is no illegality in the order impugned, i.e., the one dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Learned C.A.T., in O.A. No. 050/00470 of 2019, hence the present appeal stands dismissed.