Tulsiram son of Shri Gheesa Laal vs Union of India

The present writ petition assails the order dated

29/05/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench,

Jaipur dismissing O.A. No.291/00265/2014 declining to interfere

with the order of punishment dated 29/06/2013 pursuant to a

departmental proceeding imposing reduction of pay by one stage

for one year with cumulative effect.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade

us that the order of punishment, order of the appellate authority

and that of the Tribunal were unsustainable on more than one

ground. Considering that our jurisdiction in judicial review under

Article 226 over an order of punishment pursuant to a

departmental proceeding is restricted to examination of the

decision making process only and not the merits of the decision,

we consider one ground raised by the Counsel for the petitioner as

sufficient for deciding the writ petition. Therefore we shall take

note of the facts of the case only to the extent necessary for

purposes of the present order.

A memorandum of two charges was served upon the

petitioner on 21/02/2012. Both the charges were inter-connected

and shall be noticed cumulatively. On 29/12/2011, while media

personnel had come to visit the carriage workshop, the petitioner

interacted with them in an unauthorised manner by crossing the

shop floor also spoiling the image of the department constituting

an offence under Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

The enquiry report returned a finding of guilt on

14/03/2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal inter-alia raising

the objection that the person on whose complaint the charges

were framed and enquiry held was appointed the enquiry officer.

The submission on behalf of the petitioner was that the enquiry

officer could not have been a witness himself. The further

contention was that this objection raised specifically in the appeal

has not been decided by the appellate authority order dated

08/04/2014 except for observing that it was not true with no

further reasons assigned. If an appellate order was open to

challenge in judicial review it had to be reasoned why the

objection taken by the petitioner that the enquiry officer and the

complainant were the same was factually wrong by disclosing of

reasons, albeit the names of the two persons as different

individuals. An order which is not reasoned smacks of arbitrariness

displaying of non-application of mind.

If that were not enough, the parties were at issue on

the question before the Tribunal. The petitioner specifically

asserted this fact with the respondent denying the same. There

was thus a lis before the Tribunal whether the complainant and the

enquiry officer were the same person. The Tribunal failed to decide

this question specifically and skirted the issue by observing that

the enquiry officer had been changed at the request of the

petitioner. Even if that were so it would not justify appointing the

complainant as the enquiry officer. The petitioner is stated to have

superannuated on 31/12/2015.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if

this Court was not satisfied on facts, the matter may be remanded

for giving of reasons. Cumulatively, it was submitted that if there

was material howsoever minimum, in support of the charge, the

court should not interfere in an order of punishment passed in a

departmental proceeding. No prejudice has been caused to the

petitioner as he had full opportunity of defence as also remedy of

appellate forum. Reliance was placed on AIR 1963 SC 1723 : State

of A.P. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao. Reliance was further placed on

(1994) 2 SCC 537 : State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Samarendra

Kishore Endow in support of the submission that the jurisdiction of

the Court in judicial review over an order of punishment is limited

to examine the errors in the decision making process only.

It is trite law that no man can be a judge in his own

cause and that justice must not only be done but must appear to

be done. The petitioner raised a specific objection in appeal that

the complainant was the enquiry officer. The appellate authority

denied it simplicitor without any reasons by the finding that it was

not correct. It being a pure question of fact the order had to be

reasoned especially when it was amenable to judicial review.

Likewise, the petitioner before the Tribunal specifically raised the

issue with the respondent denying it but the Tribunal did not

return any finding on it factually.

Reference may be made to (2008) 8 SCC 236 : State of

Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh observing as follows:-

"15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer."

The allegations against the petitioner are related to

interaction with the media personnel and crossing the shop floor.

There are no serious allegations of financial misdemeanor,

embezzlement or misappropriation. The petitioner was charge-

sheeted in 2012, faced an enquiry and has now been

superannuated. The travails that he had to go through in facing

departmental enquiry, filing more than one application before the

Tribunal and this Court, we consider it sufficient in the facts of the

present case for the allegations levelled against him and are of the

considered opinion that in the nature of the charges, he should

now be left in peace after his superannuation. Therefore we do not

consider the present a fit case to remand it to the appellate

authority.

S. Sree Rama Rao (supra) and Samarendra Kishore

Endow (supra) did not consider the issue with regard to the

enquiry officer being a judge of his own case and therefore has no

relevance in the present issue.

The order of punishment dated 29/06/2013 is set-

aside.