Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and the General Manager of Central Railway filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 28 February 2020, which allowed the original application filed by S.C. Jain, a railway employee, and set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority (29 June 2012) and appellate authority (18 September 2013) imposing the penalty of removal from service. The respondent, S.C. Jain, was appointed as Assistant Station Master in 1992 and later promoted to Group 'B' Officer. In 2008, a memorandum was issued proposing an inquiry under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging that while working as Assistant Operating Manager from April to October 2006, he demanded and accepted illegal money from a booking clerk, A.K. Singh, to settle a vigilance case. The inquiry officer submitted a report exonerating the respondent of the major charge of demanding and accepting bribe but held him guilty of minor misconduct. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry officer's findings and imposed the penalty of removal from service without providing the respondent an opportunity to be heard. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal without granting a personal hearing. The CAT set aside both orders, directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. The High Court upheld the CAT's decision, finding that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the inquiry officer's report and the respondent's representation, and the appellate authority violated natural justice by not affording a hearing. The court also noted that the punishment of removal was disproportionate. The petition was dismissed, and the CAT's order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Consideration of Evidence - Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 9 - The disciplinary authority must consider all relevant evidence and material on record before imposing penalty; failure to do so vitiates the order. Held that the disciplinary authority's order was passed without considering the inquiry officer's report and the respondent's representation, thus unsustainable (Paras 10-15). B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - The appellate authority must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer; non-compliance renders the appellate order invalid. Held that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without affording personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice (Paras 16-18). C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Removal from Service - The punishment of removal from service for alleged demand and acceptance of bribe was disproportionate to the charges, especially when the inquiry officer had exonerated the respondent of major charges. Held that the tribunal correctly set aside the penalty and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits (Paras 19-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary authority and appellate authority's orders imposing penalty of removal from service on the respondent were vitiated due to procedural irregularities and non-consideration of relevant evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28 February 2020, which set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and directed reinstatement of the respondent with consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Natural justice
- Consideration of evidence
- Proportionality of punishment
- Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules
- 1968
- Railway Services (Conduct) Rules
- 1966
