it2025_00922 — In this disciplinary case, the Applicant who is Junior Ticket Examiner filed this case praying for a declaration to the effect that the impugned penalty orders dated 5-8-2013 and 20-9-2013 are illegal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides ordered that the orders of Revisional and Appellate authorities imposing punishment of reduction by two stages for a period of two years with postponement of future increments for 2 years stands

IT Rules

In this disciplinary case, the Applicant who is Junior Ticket Examiner filed this case praying for a declaration to the effect that the impugned penalty orders dated 5-8-2013 and 20-9-2013 are illegal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides ordered that the orders of Revisional and Appellate authorities imposing punishment of reduction by two stages for a period of two years with postponement of future increments for 2 years stands — This case involves a Junior Ticket Examiner who filed an application challenging two penalty orders dated August 5, 2013, and September 20, 2013. The Tribunal found that the orders were illegal due t... — Facts: Applicant herein was initially appointed as office boy with effect from 28-6-1985 under the Respondents. Later he was selected as Ticket Collector through Departmental Competitive Examination. He was promoted as Senior Ticket Examiner by Order, dated 22-10-2003. He was further promoted as Head Ticket Collector by Order, dated 29-6-2012 (AG). The said appointment order was issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer who is in J.A.G. with the approval of the Competent Authorty. On 15-3-2013 the Applicant was issued with a charge-sheet (A-5) on the advice of vigilance Department. The charge-sheet was issued by Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) as the Disciplinary authority (who is a Gr. 'B' Officer). As the charge-sheet was issued by an in competent authority it is stated that the entire proceedings stands vitiated. It is alleged that the Applicant defrauded Railways by collecting illegal gratification of ₹ 50 from a decoy passenger causing loss to the Railways to the extent of ₹ 210 on account of misconduct. Hence it is alleged that the Applicant contravened provisions of Rule 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the Railway servants (conduct) Rules, 1966. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, dated 3-9-2010 (A-7) to the Disciplinary authority and then served on the Applicant. Without considering the Applicant's representation on the said report, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty of reduction of Applicant's pay by two stages. Applicant did not challenge that order. However, the Applicant was served with a show-cause notice, dated 21-3-2012 (A-1) by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (R-3) to explain as to why the penalty cannot be enhanced by exercising suo moto power of revisions vested to him. R-3 without considering the reply of the Applicant to the above show-cause notice enhanced the penalty of reduction in pay to the reversion to initial grade as Junior Ticket Collector for a period of 10 years vide order, dated 30-6-2012 (A-10). Appeal by the Applicant, dated 30-8-12 to Officer on Special Duty (Services), Mumbai Division, R-2 herein resulted in reduction of the period of 10 years to 8 years by confirming the reversion as Junior Ticket Collector. Hence the Applicant approached the Tribunal challenging the order of punishment of reduction as Junior Ticket Collector for 8 years on various grounds. Respondents resisted the OA on various grounds. Final decision of the Tribunal is clear and hence the important considerations of the Tribunal are noted below. The only controversy involved in this OA for decision of the Tribunal is, whether the order imposing enhanced penalty by R-3 suo moto revisional power vested in him and confirmed by R-2, the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside as illegal, incorrect or unproper on grounds raised by the Applicant. The Tribunal examined the issue by reading the various rules and regulations and examined whether the applicant contravened Rule No. 3.1 (i), 3.1
(ii) and 3.1
(iii) of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966 punishable under Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. The previous history of the case and punishment noted out to the Applicant was recollected and noticed. The point to be decided is the punishment granted to the Applicant by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. However show-cause notice has to be issued before exercising the said powers as per Rule 25 (1)
(v)
(d)
(a) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rule, which rule is reproduced for clarity. As there being no specific finding recorded by the Tribunal in the previous OA regarding legality and validity of the show-cause notice, it is permissible for the Applicant to agitate the same in this OA also, while challenging subsequent orders passed by the Revisional Authority and the Appellate Authority imposing enhanced penalty of compulsory retirement. Applicant challenged the show-cause notice under various grounds to authorities. However this ground was not considered by both the authorities since there is nothing to this effect in the initial or subsequent impugned order. The scope of revision was restricted to imposition of enhanced penalty. However while issuing the show-cause notice, it is only mentioned that in terms of Rule 25 of "Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the Tribunal had provisionally come to the conclusion to enhance the penalty." In the absence of proposing any specific enhanced penalty in the show-cause notice, it can be said that strong prejudice has been caused to the Applicant, since he took it by surprise when the enhanced penalty of compulsory retirement not proposed in the show-cause notice, was imposed on him. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the penalty of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law as it resulted in violation of fundamental right of the Applicant to meet the proposed enhancement of penalty. Hence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the matter needs to be remanded once again to the Revisional Authority R-3 for issuing appropriate show-cause notice in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 (1)
(v)
(d)
(a) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 indicating proposed enhanced penalty to be imposed and then pass appropriate order on it. O.A. is therefore allowed quashing the orders of Revisional Authority, dated 5-8-2013 (A-2) and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order, dated 20-9-2013 (A-3) imposing Compulsory Retirement on the Applicant. Hence the matter is remanded back to R-3 as it is not felt necessary to remand it back to Disciplinary Authority as it will serve no purpose. By now as the Applicant had crossed 60 years of age and retired already, reinstatement of the Applicant does not arise.

IT Rules

In this disciplinary case, the Applicant who is Junior Ticket Examiner filed this case praying for a declaration to the effect that the impugned penalty orders dated 5-8-2013 and 20-9-2013 are illegal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides ordered that the orders of Revisional and Appellate authorities imposing punishment of reduction by two stages for a period of two years with postponement of future increments for 2 years stands — This case involves a Junior Ticket Examiner who filed an application challenging two penalty orders dated August 5, 2013, and September 20, 2013. The Tribunal found that the orders were illegal due t... — Facts: Applicant herein was initially appointed as office boy with effect from 28-6-1985 under the Respondents. Later he was selected as Ticket Collector through Departmental Competitive Examination. He was promoted as Senior Ticket Examiner by Order, dated 22-10-2003. He was further promoted as Head Ticket Collector by Order, dated 29-6-2012 (AG). The said appointment order was issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer who is in J.A.G. with the approval of the Competent Authorty. On 15-3-2013 the Applicant was issued with a charge-sheet (A-5) on the advice of vigilance Department. The charge-sheet was issued by Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) as the Disciplinary authority (who is a Gr. 'B' Officer). As the charge-sheet was issued by an in competent authority it is stated that the entire proceedings stands vitiated. It is alleged that the Applicant defrauded Railways by collecting illegal gratification of ₹ 50 from a decoy passenger causing loss to the Railways to the extent of ₹ 210 on account of misconduct. Hence it is alleged that the Applicant contravened provisions of Rule 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the Railway servants (conduct) Rules, 1966. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, dated 3-9-2010 (A-7) to the Disciplinary authority and then served on the Applicant. Without considering the Applicant's representation on the said report, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty of reduction of Applicant's pay by two stages. Applicant did not challenge that order. However, the Applicant was served with a show-cause notice, dated 21-3-2012 (A-1) by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (R-3) to explain as to why the penalty cannot be enhanced by exercising suo moto power of revisions vested to him. R-3 without considering the reply of the Applicant to the above show-cause notice enhanced the penalty of reduction in pay to the reversion to initial grade as Junior Ticket Collector for a period of 10 years vide order, dated 30-6-2012 (A-10). Appeal by the Applicant, dated 30-8-12 to Officer on Special Duty (Services), Mumbai Division, R-2 herein resulted in reduction of the period of 10 years to 8 years by confirming the reversion as Junior Ticket Collector. Hence the Applicant approached the Tribunal challenging the order of punishment of reduction as Junior Ticket Collector for 8 years on various grounds. Respondents resisted the OA on various grounds. Final decision of the Tribunal is clear and hence the important considerations of the Tribunal are noted below. The only controversy involved in this OA for decision of the Tribunal is, whether the order imposing enhanced penalty by R-3 suo moto revisional power vested in him and confirmed by R-2, the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside as illegal, incorrect or unproper on grounds raised by the Applicant. The Tribunal examined the issue by reading the various rules and regulations and examined whether the applicant contravened Rule No. 3.1 (i), 3.1
(ii) and 3.1
(iii) of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966 punishable under Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. The previous history of the case and punishment noted out to the Applicant was recollected and noticed. The point to be decided is the punishment granted to the Applicant by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. However show-cause notice has to be issued before exercising the said powers as per Rule 25 (1)
(v)
(d)
(a) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rule, which rule is reproduced for clarity. As there being no specific finding recorded by the Tribunal in the previous OA regarding legality and validity of the show-cause notice, it is permissible for the Applicant to agitate the same in this OA also, while challenging subsequent orders passed by the Revisional Authority and the Appellate Authority imposing enhanced penalty of compulsory retirement. Applicant challenged the show-cause notice under various grounds to authorities. However this ground was not considered by both the authorities since there is nothing to this effect in the initial or subsequent impugned order. The scope of revision was restricted to imposition of enhanced penalty. However while issuing the show-cause notice, it is only mentioned that in terms of Rule 25 of "Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the Tribunal had provisionally come to the conclusion to enhance the penalty." In the absence of proposing any specific enhanced penalty in the show-cause notice, it can be said that strong prejudice has been caused to the Applicant, since he took it by surprise when the enhanced penalty of compulsory retirement not proposed in the show-cause notice, was imposed on him. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the penalty of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law as it resulted in violation of fundamental right of the Applicant to meet the proposed enhancement of penalty. Hence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the matter needs to be remanded once again to the Revisional Authority R-3 for issuing appropriate show-cause notice in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 (1)
(v)
(d)
(a) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 indicating proposed enhanced penalty to be imposed and then pass appropriate order on it. O.A. is therefore allowed quashing the orders of Revisional Authority, dated 5-8-2013 (A-2) and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order, dated 20-9-2013 (A-3) imposing Compulsory Retirement on the Applicant. Hence the matter is remanded back to R-3 as it is not felt necessary to remand it back to Disciplinary Authority as it will serve no purpose. By now as the Applicant had crossed 60 years of age and retired already, reinstatement of the Applicant does not arise.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text