CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00144 of 2015 Onkar Singh Yadav Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. Page 1 of 4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.332/00144/2015 Dated, this 20thday of January, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Onkar Singh Yadav, aged about 60 years, son of Sri Jagannath Yadav Ex-Assistant Station Master, resident of Village Sunderpur, Post Office Umrauli, District Hardoi.
…..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri C.S. Singh Yadav
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad.
3. Senior Divisional Officer (Karmik) Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad
…..Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"The applicant respectfully submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement served upon the applicant Form 9 along with its Annexure-A dated 29 of August 2014 and also set aside the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the appellate authority and further direct the respondents to disburse the entire retiral benefits and pay the pension regularly to the applicant.
Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper may also be passed."
1
Page 2 of 4
2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Assistant Station Master under the respondents, was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.10.1992 and dismissed from service vide order dated 04.11.1995. The applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 54 of 2003 against the penalty of dismissal from service, whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 31.08.2005, set aside the order dated 04.11.1995 granting liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order of punishment commensurate to the charges. The applicant was re-instated in service by the respondents.
2.2 Subsequently, the applicant was proceeded against departmentally by issuing charge sheet dated 02.03.2012. On denial of charges by the applicant, an enquiry was conducted and the report submitted on 12.05.2014. Thereafter, the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the applicant vide order dated 09.08.2014. His appeal dated 02.09.2014 was rejected vide order dated 05.11.2014. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant's contention is that the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 31.08.2014 before three months from the date of superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2014 is bad in law as the applicant is not guilty of charges levelled against him, the respondents have imposed punishment arbitrarily after continuously harassing him, and the appellate authority rejected his appeal without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
4. The respondents state that the applicant was issued charge sheet dated 02.03.2012 for indiscipline and leaving headquarters without permission and leave which was borne out in the enquiry. The applicant was issued notice dated 20.05.2014 along with copy of the enquiry report, but he neither submitted his representation nor met the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment
Page 3 of 4
of compulsory retirement vide order dated 29.08.2014 on the basis of facts and evidences on record. The appellate authority passed reasoned and speaking order dated 05.11.2014 after considering the appeal in accordance with rule 22 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 A perusal of the enquiry report brings out that there were two charges against the applicant. The first charge was absenting from duty without permission and causing unsafe train operation habitually. The second charge pertained to leaving headquarter after duty and creating hurdle in train operation. After examining four witnesses and the documents, the enquiry officer found that the charge of unauthorized absence was not proved, but the applicant was guilty of leaving headquarter without permission.
6.2 It is noted that while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the disciplinary authority recorded:
"Since the working of ASM is directly connected with the safe train operation and the staff can be called for at any time in any abnormal circumstances. In such a situation, leaving HQ without permission of the Competent Authority, may cause danger to railway safety & passenger's life."
(emphasis supplied)
6.3 A perusal of the applicant's appeal dated 02.09.2014 shows that he did not request for a personal hearing. The applicant cannot take the ground now that he was not afforded the opportunity for personal hearing.
6.4 It is not in dispute that the applicant was holding the post of Assistant Station Master. The enquiry brought out that he used to leave headquarter without permission. The disciplinary authority took a serious view of the applicant's conduct on the ground that it
Page 4 of 4
endangered rail safety and lives of passengers. We are hard put to disagree with the respondents considering the applicant's responsibility as Assistant Station Master. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the impugned orders to be arbitrary or bad in law.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs. (Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A) Member (J)
Comments