IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24436 of 2005(S) -------------------------------------- OA.549/2003 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ............................................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,CHENNAI-3. 2. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,CHENNAI-3. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. P.NITHYANANDAN,SON OF LATE P.KRISHNAN, LEAVE RESERVE TICKET COLLECTOR/SLEEPER/PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT KRISHNA PRABHA,GIRI NAGAR, NEAR N.S.S. ENGINEERING COLLEGE,PALAKKAD. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-17. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA SMT.SUMY.P.BABY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 24436/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 549/03 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE A1 TO 16 FILED BY THE R1 BEFORE THE R2- TRIBUNAL. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 6/2/2004 IN EXHIBIT P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 549/2003 BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REJOINDER ON 20/2/2004 IN EXHIBIT P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 549 OF 2003 BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1/2/2005 PASSED BY THE R2 TRIBUNAL IN EXHIBIT P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 549/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24436 of 2005-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioners herein who are respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, are aggrieved by the order allowing the O.A. filed by the first respondent/applicant. The subject matter of the O.A. was the challenge against the punishment imposed pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent. The Tribunal, as per the impugned order, set aside the order imposing penalty and consequential benefits have been granted to the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has acted erroneously in interfering with the penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority justified the penalty imposed. 3. The Tribunal interfered with the penalty in the light of the clear finding by the appellate authority that the charges levelled against the applicant were without proper basis. It was therefore found that if there are WPC 24436/2005 -2- no basis for the charge, there was no justification for imposing any penalty. In fact, the charges in a nutshell are that during the period from 1.1.1990 to 1.1.1996, the applicant was in possession of assets worth Rs.1,23,041/- disproportionate to his known sources of income, that he was involved in the business of lending and lastly, the applicant went for additional construction of his house above the cost ceiling without obtaining prior written permission from the department. He was working as a Ticket Collector. 4. The order passed by the appellate authority is Annexure 3 produced before the Tribunal. The appellate authority found that justice has not been meted out to the charged employee in this issue and it is necessary to correct the course of events, at least at the appellate stage and ultimately it was held that all the charges have been levelled against the employee without proper basis. The relevant paragraph from the said order is extracted in the order of the Tribunal. It was thereafter held by the appellate authority that this is an extremely weak case calling for drastic reduction of the penalty, if not cancelling it. In fact, the revisional authority also agreed with the appellate authority that out of three charges, two charges are not quite strongly substantiated. But it agreed with the penalty imposed by the appellate authority. WPC 24436/2005 -3- 5. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that once the charges have been proved baseless, the imposition of penalty by the appellate authority cannot be justified. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. Only if there is a valid charge which has been proved to the hilt, the disciplinary proceedings will attract appropriate penalty. Both the appellate and revisional authorities while imposing the penalty, ignored this fact. Therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal is so perverse warranting interference in these proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 24436/2005 -4- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 17th March, 2008. WPC 24436/2005 -5-