CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10843 OF 1999 --------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------- Rajendra Prasad, son of late Bhuletan Prasad, lastly employed as Leverman Gr.I, North Cabin, Tehta Station, resident of Village-Tehta Math, Post Office-Makhdumpur, P.S. Tehta, District- Jehanabad. ----------- Petitioner. Versus 1.The Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17 Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta. 2. The Additional D.R.M. Eastern Railway, Danapur, Patna. 3. The Divisional Safety Officer, Eastern Railway, D.S. Office, Danapur, Patna. 4. The Divisional Engineer, Eastern Railway, D.S. Office, Danapur, Patna. 5. The Divisional Sig. & Tel. Engineer, Eastern Railway D.S. Office, Danapur, Patna. 6. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P), Eastern Railway, D.S. Office, Danapur, Patna. 7. The A.O.S. (T)-cum-Enquiry Officer, Eastern Railway, D.S. Office, Danapur, Patna ----- ----- Respodnents. ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivajee Pandey,Sr.Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar. For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Prasad. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1999 (Annexure-26), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. 17 of 1994 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. The Union of India & others), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected, and the order of 2 removal from the service passed by the respondent authority has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner claims to have been born on 12.6.1944. He had initially joined in the railways as a substitute on 14.12.1964, and was thereafter made a permanent porter on 31.7.1977. In due course, he was promoted as leverman grade II on 9.11.1982, and thereafter promoted to leverman grade I on 12.4.1985. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as leverman at Tehta railway station. While he was on duty on 26.2.1991, two trains had collided causing loss to the railway property. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 4.3.1991 (Annexure-1). This was followed by a preliminary enquiry leading to initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, station master, the guard, and the engine driver. The memo of charges dated 21/22.3.1991 (Annexure-3) was served on him. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.5.1991 (Annexure-17), whereby he found that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. This was followed by second show-cause notice dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure-18), along with copy of the 3 enquiry report forwarded to the petitioner. He had shown cause by his communication dated 3.6.1991 (Annexure-19). On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplinary authority passed order dated 20.6.1991(Annexure-20), whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected leading to O.A. No. 174 of 1992. The Tribunal disposed of the same by order dated 26.7.1993 (Annexure-23), whereby the order of the learned appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remitted to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made therein. The matter was reconsidered by the learned appellate authority and once again dismissed the appeal on 12.11.1993 (Annexure-25). The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A. No.17 of 1994, which has been rejected by the impugned order leading to the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance that the learned appellate authority did not discharge his duties and functions as enjoined upon him in law and has rejected the appeal by a summary order. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009(III) Labour Law Journal 624(SC) (Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish 4 Sharan Varshney and Others) (Paragraph nos. 8 to 10, 11 and 13). He lastly submits that the sentence is disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges and is also discriminatory in nature. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) (2007)4 SCC 669 (Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and another) (Paragraph nos. 17 to 24)) (ii) (2008) 4 P.L.J.R. 6 (SC) (Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors) (Paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. As to the petitioner’s first contention that the appeal has been disposed of by a cryptic order, we must concede that the same is not satisfactory. Much can be said on both sides. The appellate order does not discuss the materials, but does record the conclusions clearly. He has indeed concluded as follows: (i) Learned appellate authority afforded opportunity to the petitioner of hearing to him as well as his defence counsel. (ii) Learned Enquiry Officer had followed the prescribed procedure, and (iii) The punishment is adequate as 5 all those found responsible in this case have been removed from service. 6. We are of the view that the learned appellate authority could have recorded a reasoned order, but then the conclusions show application of the mind and we fully agree with the same. Secondly, deficiency or the mistake in the appellate order has been made good by the learned Tribunal, a forum of facts, which has delved deep into the matter, examined all issue of facts and law, and has disposed of the petitioner’s original application by an exhaustive and well-reasoned order. On a thoughtful consideration of this aspect of the matter, we are of the view that no prejudice has occurred to the petitioner by the deficient order of the learned appellate authority. It is elementary to state that superior forums of appeal, revision etc. are created to rectify the grievances caused by unsatisfactory decisions of the inferior forums. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 7. Learned Tribunal has in its exhaustive judgment come to the conclusion that the learned Enquiry Officer had afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner to establish his defence, he did participate in the enquiry proceedings along with the defence helper, and the prescribed procedure was followed, the principles of natural justice were observed, and the learned Enquiry Officer 6 submitted a thorough and exhaustive report. The issue relating to discriminatory treatment in so far as punishment is concerned has been exhaustively discussed by the learned disciplinary authority as well as the learned Tribunal. 8. We would like to discuss in detail the grievance relating to the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner. It appears to us that the Administration has been able to prove the charges against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the enquiry report is reproduced hereinbelow: “5. … Evidently, the leverman failed in his duty of detecting infringement of the fouling marks and his statement that the driver of 8623 Up subsequently made a forward and backward movement is not acceptable. He also failed to exchange private numbers for the entire trains violating the S.W.R. and conducted reception and dispatch of trains in his duty without recording the same in his log book, which was completely blank. He also took away his private number sheet while leaving the cabin after the accident. He did this only to cover up his failure and his version that he did not know as to what happened to private number sheet is incorrect. He deliberately did so to shield his guilt of not exchanging the private number. When the Log Book was available, there was no reason for the private number sheet to be missing. I am of the opinion that Sri Rajendra Prasad, leverman, miserably failed in his duty which resulted in the side collision and he is responsible 7 for the same by violating the Rules mentioned in the charge sheet. 6. The undersigned has duly considered the defence notes of the transferred officials before arriving at the conclusion in the finding. ” 9. It is thus evident that the petitioner was guilty of negligence and dereliction of duties, with which the learned disciplinary authority agreed. Safety and security of train services is extremely important and no leniency can be shown in this regard, particularly in a situation where railway accident on account of negligence of its employees is increasing, resulting in loss of lives and Government property. Furthermore, determination of the quantum of punishment is essentially an executive and administrative function, and the courts are normally reluctant to interfere with the same, unless it is seriously disproportionate to the gravity of proven charges and shocks the conscience of the court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are more than convinced that appropriate punishment has been meted out to the petitioner and we uphold the same. Showing any leniency in the matter, and awarding lesser punishment to the petitioner, would be compromising with the safety and security of the passengers and the properties of the Indian Railways. 10. We must deal with another grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner that discriminatory treatment 8 has been meted out to him. He submits that the guard and the driver have been let off with lighter punishments. Enquiry proceedings for negligence of duty with respect to the occurrence in question had been initiated against four persons, namely, the present petitioner, the station master, the guard, and the engine driver. The authorities have on facts found that the present petitioner in the capacity of the Liverman on duty, and the station master on duty, were primarily responsible for the accident and, therefore, uniform punishments of removal from service have been inflicted on both of them. On the other hand, lighter punishments has been inflicted on the guard and the engine driver because, according to the enquiry report, they were not guilty to the same extent as the Liverman and the Station Master. The following observations of the learned Tribunal may be noticed: “ In the instant case before us, there is evidence on the record to show that the applicant is responsible for the accident, and as said above, the Station Master (delinquent) whose case is on lighter footing, has already been awarded the punishment of removal, which has been upheld by this Tribunal. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that the other delinquents viz, the Guard and the drivers, who were also responsible for the accident, were awarded lesser punishment and the applicant should also be treated on the same footing, appears not tenable. Further more, the Respondents Railway as a matter of policy and principle decided on a particular course of punishment. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to 9 interfere with the punishment as awarded to the applicant. “ 11. We are thus convinced that the grievance of the petitioner that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to him is wholly unfounded and without any basis. The present petitioner and the Station Master were primarily responsible for the accident and have, therefore, been rightly awarded the punishment of removal from service. On the other hand, the guard and the engine driver were responsible for the accident in a lesser decree and was secondary in nature, have rightly been awarded lesser punishments. 12. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S. K. Katriar, J.) Kishore K. Mandal,J. I agree. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) High Court Patna. Dated 30th March, 2010. Vinay/ A.F.R.