IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18188 of 2010 6 21.4.2011 Sada Nand Singh, Son of Late Ram Swarup Singh, working as Diesel Driver (Goods) under the Section Engineer (Loco), Eastern Railway, Loco Shed, Jamalpur, District- Munger (Bihar) ….. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Union of India represented through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, 17, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-1 (West Bengal) 2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, 17, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-1 (West Bengal) 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda (W.B.) 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda (W.B.) 5. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda (W.B.) 6. The Divisional Safety Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda (West Bengal) ….. RESPONDENTS --------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ram Kumar Jha with Amar Nath Jha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Anil Singh, Advocate ---------- Heard the parties. In paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has taken a view that the order passed by the CME, the revisional or reviewing authority did not amount to enhancing the punishment awarded to the petitioner. On considering this aspect of the matter and other points - 2 - raised on behalf of the petitioner, the Tribunal did not interfere with the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the revisional authority but a part of the revisional order providing that the period of inaction in service would be treated as leave was set aside and it was directed that the period of inaction be treated as on duty and for that the due emoluments be also paid. Inter alia, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal should have in fact held in paragraph 17 that the revisional authority, the CME, had in fact imposed a fresh punishment upon the petitioner for the first time because the appellate authority had exonerated the petitioner of the charge and the punishment of compulsory retirement subsequently passed by DRM, Malda was rightly held to be absolutely without jurisdiction. The CME was treated to be the revisional authority by the Tribunal as well as by the petitioner and in such circumstances, the finding given by the CME that the DRM, Malda could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction, is without challenge and on that basis the punishment of compulsory - 3 - retirement awarded by DRM, Malda in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is simply required to be ignored whereas the Tribunal has committed a mistake in giving due consideration to the punishment and on that basis coming to a finding that the CME has reduced the punishment of compulsory retirement to a punishment awarded by him and which is under challenge. We find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment awarded by the CME by Annexure- 19 dated 7.6.2004 neither increases nor reduces any punishment awarded to the petitioner, rather it imposes for the first time a punishment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because by earlier order the appellate authority exonerated the petitioner of the charges. In view of aforesaid factual position, it has been rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of Rule 18 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 that as a railway servant the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal against an order imposing any of the specified penalties by a reviewing or - 4 - revisional authority. From Annexure - 21 series it is clear that on 31.7.2004, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata (West Bengal) through proper channel labeling it as a mercy appeal against the punishment awarded to him by the revisional authority. That appeal was not entertained insofar as the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, by informing him through a letter dated 25.8.2004 that since the revisional authority had already passed orders in exercise of revisional power, no further revision will lie to any authority as per the rules. Leaned counsel for the petitioner, as noticed above, has rightly submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of CME has not been entertained and considered on a misconception that no appeal would lie. We find substance in the submission. In the facts of the case, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13.9.2007 and the communication dated 25.8.2004 (part of Annexure 21 series) are set aside and quashed and the matter is remitted back to the proper - 5 - appellate authority, superior in rank to the CME, Kolkata to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner and decide it on merits by a reasoned order at an early date preferably within four months from the date of production / communication of a copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case of the petitioner. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J.)