Union Of India @APPELLANT@Hash Rajendra Prasad Katara

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

O.A.No.32/Jodhpur/2010 filed by Rajendra Prasad Katara has been allowed giving three reasons. The first is that pursuant to an identically worded

charge-sheet co-delinquent Sharad Nagar working as a Junior Engineer was visited with a lesser penalty and thus penalty of reduction to minimum in

the pay scale for a period of three years with future effect and loss of seniority was discriminatory. The second was that no witness was examined in

support of the charge levelled and on the basis of the documents filed which were not proved the penalty was levied. The third reason was that the

appellate authority did not deal with the contentions advanced by the respondent.

Relevant facts are to be culled from the statement of imputation regarding the misconduct. The same brings out that between Malar and Phalodi

stations Km.108.500 to Km.109.500 on the railway line maintenance work was on and crushed stone ballast had to be laid in this section. At the

section blocking work was not commissioned and thus on 28.7.2006 a joint procedure order was prepared as per which the train had to be protected

by two chains and a padlock per 15 wagons and all the brakes of the wagon had to be screwed hard. Investigation revealed that two chains were not

put. One tampering machine was working ahead in the section and because of the wagons carrying the ballast not being secured properly the chain

broke and one wagon rolled down and crushed into the tampering machine.

With respect to the charge against R.P.Katara we reproduce the charge for the reason much turns on the charge. The charge against him reads as

under:-

Sh. R.P. Katara SSE/P.way/PLC,Being PWI/Incharge, You have failed to ensure proper securing and protection of ballast DMT as per Joint

Procedure order No.WWG78-W12/PLC-KLYT dated 28.07.2006 issued by division resulting in rolling down of ballast DMT. You had knowingly

taken ballast DMT in to the section where tamping machine was already working and then failed to communicate with your counter part of

construction organization about placement of DMT as tamping machine was also working ahead in the same section. Your communication could

have helped in proper setting up of route of construction staff and could have avoided the collision.â€​

Suffice it to highlight that the statement of imputation being common to all contained general contours of what was required to be done and what

was done and what was omitted to be done. The charge as noted hereinabove against R.P.Katara was not that he was to supervise the movement of

the ballast nor was a charge that it was his duty to ensure that the wagons transporting stone ballast were properly secured. The charge against him

was that knowing that there was a tampering machine ahead he did not inform his counter-part that the wagons carrying the ballast were also

working in the section thus the persons working on the tampering machine were denied the benefit of proper setting up of the route.

Thus the indictment of the respondent on account of the wagons carrying the ballast not being properly secured cannot be sustained for the reason

this was not the charge against him.

On the issue of the respondent being required to give any specific instruction to those working on the tampering machine, we find that no such

evidence led. In fact the documents in support of the charge keep on highlighting two chains to be used per 15 wagons and brake of the wagons to be

screwed hard. No witness has deposed regarding alleged obligation on the respondent to have informed the team incharge of the tampering

machine which was ahead from the point where ballast had to be unloaded on the track.

Pertaining to the incident, charge against R.P.Katara and that against Sharad Nagar fall in different compartments. We find that neither the

disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have considered this aspect of the matter.

Thus for reasons different than the one given by the Tribunal we hold that the penalty levied is illegal and thus dismiss the writ petition.