it2025_00325 — Charge-sheet issued to the Applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 14 (ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the ground if earning of good amount of money per month by holding tuition classes without any authority and without prior permission of his controlling authority and not disclosing the income by way of private tuition to income tax authorities are without proper proof after analyzing the charges dispassionately based on records, rules and regulatio

IT Rules

Charge-sheet issued to the Applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 14
(ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the ground if earning of good amount of money per month by holding tuition classes without any authority and without prior permission of his controlling authority and not disclosing the income by way of private tuition to income tax authorities are without proper proof after analyzing the charges dispassionately based on records, rules and regulations. Hence the minor penalty meted out to Applicant by stoppage of next increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect cannot be sustained and hence the OA is allowed and punishment is set aside — The chunk discusses the findings of the Tribunal on two main charges against the Applicant, a TGT teacher: 1) the quality and quantity of teaching responsibilities and 2) taking tuitions without prio... — Facts: The Applicant, herein is a TGT Railway Higher Secondary School Teacher in the State of Assam working in Dimapur Railway High School and transferred to Badarpur Higher Secondary School of N.F. Railway. The Principal of Higher Secondary School, Badarpur Shri Rajkamal (R. No.4 herein) is reported to be working with the Applicant with malice and issued letter as having taken private tuitions to students collecting fees. To that letter, Applicant submitted his representation. In spite of that, a minor penalty charge memorandum was issued. But without taking it to logical conclusion, another memorandum of charges for the same set of allegations was issued to him, dated 25-7-2012. The statement of allegations is reproduced in the judgment. The main charge is, taking private tuition in exchange of a good amount per month without any authority and prior written permission of his Controlling Officer. Income by private tuition is not disclosed for income tax and discarded the Railway Board instructions, dated 11-9-1957 and communicated to him vide Order, dated 4-4-2005. The Applicant states that, without getting his reply and conducting the enquiry, the penalty of stoppage of next increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect was passed. Against that order, the Applicant has filed this OA to set aside the punishment order of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. The Tribunal issued the notice to concerned and stayed the operation of the impugned penalty Order, dated 13-8-2013 and 21-1-2004 till the next date. Interim order was extended until further orders. It is not necessary to further elaborate as similar cases had already been published in nitisnewS journals. The Tribunal on hearing both sides, observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the Applicant that he was not running separate coaching / tuition centre and was only helping the needy students after school hours at his residence. From the submissions of Respondents in their written statement, no imputation has been made out against the Applicant that he has not been carrying out the responsibilities towards the school with regard to quality and quantity of his teaching in any form. Hence the Tribunal found merit in the submission of the Applicant that he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and was a good teacher. The next charge is that, the Applicant without prior permission took tuitions thereby making a good earning without paying income tax as per Railway Board's Letter, dated 11-9-1957. It is not clear from the records filed as to how the avoidance of income tax and forcing teacher to declare his income from private tuition falls under the purview of duties and responsibilities of the Applicant, a teacher. No record is available to show that the income tax authorities issued any notice to the Applicant. The departmental proceeding which has been issued on the basis of Rule 3.1
(ii) and
(iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rule, 1966 does not cover loss of Government revenue because of avoidance of income tax. Government revenue cannot ipso facto to be treated at par with the Railway revenue. The above gives credence to the argument of the Applicant that he was a good teacher and professional jealousy played its role. Accordingly, the contention of the Applicant that he chose to implead R. No. 4 by name who did not defend himself by filing written statement acquires importance. The first Memorandum issued under the signature of Headmaster, dated 16-5-2012 which was withdrawn and another Memorandum was issued on 25-7-2012 on the basis of same charges, Two complaints signed by two students, one containing 17 complaints of Class X-B and another signed by students in presence of another TGT Teacher for which Principal had called for explanation from the Applicant cannot be considered as good proof of culpability of the Applicant specially when he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine these complainants or their parents who must have funded these students. The Disciplinary Authority concedes that, it is not feasible to hold an enquiry. However, the Applicant has categorically denied the allegations and no reason is assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for not holding the regular enquiry for imposing the minor penalty. Hence the case of Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and others [ 1996 (10) SCC 659 ], relied upon by the Respondents is not applicable in this case. The Respondents state that, they have acted as per Rule 14
(ii) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. That rule is reproduced in the judgment: Rule 14 deals with special procedure in certain cases. Rule 14
(ii) reads: "Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided these rules, or ....." Disciplinary Authority has to record reasons for dispensing with the regular enquiry. In this case, no reason is assigned for dispensing with regular enquiry especially when the Applicant specifically denied the allegations against him vide Memo, dated 25-7-2012. In view of the above, the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Memo, dated 25-7-2012, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 13-8-2013 and the Appellate Order, dated 21-1-2014 is found to have been based on dubious documents. The conduct of R. No. 4 cannot be considered to have been inspired by good faith. The order of the Appellate Authority does not show that the issues raised by the Applicant have not been dispassionately analyzed on the basis of records, rules and regulations.

IT Rules

Charge-sheet issued to the Applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Rule 14
(ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the ground if earning of good amount of money per month by holding tuition classes without any authority and without prior permission of his controlling authority and not disclosing the income by way of private tuition to income tax authorities are without proper proof after analyzing the charges dispassionately based on records, rules and regulations. Hence the minor penalty meted out to Applicant by stoppage of next increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect cannot be sustained and hence the OA is allowed and punishment is set aside — The chunk discusses the findings of the Tribunal on two main charges against the Applicant, a TGT teacher: 1) the quality and quantity of teaching responsibilities and 2) taking tuitions without prio... — Facts: The Applicant, herein is a TGT Railway Higher Secondary School Teacher in the State of Assam working in Dimapur Railway High School and transferred to Badarpur Higher Secondary School of N.F. Railway. The Principal of Higher Secondary School, Badarpur Shri Rajkamal (R. No.4 herein) is reported to be working with the Applicant with malice and issued letter as having taken private tuitions to students collecting fees. To that letter, Applicant submitted his representation. In spite of that, a minor penalty charge memorandum was issued. But without taking it to logical conclusion, another memorandum of charges for the same set of allegations was issued to him, dated 25-7-2012. The statement of allegations is reproduced in the judgment. The main charge is, taking private tuition in exchange of a good amount per month without any authority and prior written permission of his Controlling Officer. Income by private tuition is not disclosed for income tax and discarded the Railway Board instructions, dated 11-9-1957 and communicated to him vide Order, dated 4-4-2005. The Applicant states that, without getting his reply and conducting the enquiry, the penalty of stoppage of next increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect was passed. Against that order, the Applicant has filed this OA to set aside the punishment order of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. The Tribunal issued the notice to concerned and stayed the operation of the impugned penalty Order, dated 13-8-2013 and 21-1-2004 till the next date. Interim order was extended until further orders. It is not necessary to further elaborate as similar cases had already been published in nitisnewS journals. The Tribunal on hearing both sides, observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the Applicant that he was not running separate coaching / tuition centre and was only helping the needy students after school hours at his residence. From the submissions of Respondents in their written statement, no imputation has been made out against the Applicant that he has not been carrying out the responsibilities towards the school with regard to quality and quantity of his teaching in any form. Hence the Tribunal found merit in the submission of the Applicant that he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and was a good teacher. The next charge is that, the Applicant without prior permission took tuitions thereby making a good earning without paying income tax as per Railway Board's Letter, dated 11-9-1957. It is not clear from the records filed as to how the avoidance of income tax and forcing teacher to declare his income from private tuition falls under the purview of duties and responsibilities of the Applicant, a teacher. No record is available to show that the income tax authorities issued any notice to the Applicant. The departmental proceeding which has been issued on the basis of Rule 3.1
(ii) and
(iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rule, 1966 does not cover loss of Government revenue because of avoidance of income tax. Government revenue cannot ipso facto to be treated at par with the Railway revenue. The above gives credence to the argument of the Applicant that he was a good teacher and professional jealousy played its role. Accordingly, the contention of the Applicant that he chose to implead R. No. 4 by name who did not defend himself by filing written statement acquires importance. The first Memorandum issued under the signature of Headmaster, dated 16-5-2012 which was withdrawn and another Memorandum was issued on 25-7-2012 on the basis of same charges, Two complaints signed by two students, one containing 17 complaints of Class X-B and another signed by students in presence of another TGT Teacher for which Principal had called for explanation from the Applicant cannot be considered as good proof of culpability of the Applicant specially when he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine these complainants or their parents who must have funded these students. The Disciplinary Authority concedes that, it is not feasible to hold an enquiry. However, the Applicant has categorically denied the allegations and no reason is assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for not holding the regular enquiry for imposing the minor penalty. Hence the case of Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and others [ 1996 (10) SCC 659 ], relied upon by the Respondents is not applicable in this case. The Respondents state that, they have acted as per Rule 14
(ii) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. That rule is reproduced in the judgment: Rule 14 deals with special procedure in certain cases. Rule 14
(ii) reads: "Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided these rules, or ....." Disciplinary Authority has to record reasons for dispensing with the regular enquiry. In this case, no reason is assigned for dispensing with regular enquiry especially when the Applicant specifically denied the allegations against him vide Memo, dated 25-7-2012. In view of the above, the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Memo, dated 25-7-2012, the order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 13-8-2013 and the Appellate Order, dated 21-1-2014 is found to have been based on dubious documents. The conduct of R. No. 4 cannot be considered to have been inspired by good faith. The order of the Appellate Authority does not show that the issues raised by the Applicant have not been dispassionately analyzed on the basis of records, rules and regulations.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text