IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No: 27505 of 1998 Between: B.Niranjan S/o.Durgaiah, South Central Railways R/o.1/212, Kadipikonda Dist, Kazipeta, warangal Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sr.Divisional Mechanical Engg (power) South Central Railways Sanchalan Bhavan , Secunderabad 2 the Additional Railway Manager(BG) South Central Railways Sanchalan Bhavan , Secunderabad 3 The Divisional Railway Manager(BG) South Central Railways Sanchalan Bhavan , Secunderabad 4 The Chief Operating Manager South Central Railways Sanchalan Bhavan , Secunderabad 5 The General Manager South Central Railways , Railnilayam, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to May be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring then proceedings of the 1st respondent in No.T5/G/B5/1/MMZ/90-91 Dt: 6-7-92 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt: 29-08-93 in No.P.94/SC/BND/1645 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of the principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the Service as Driver-B by paying him the salary and arrears due tohim, and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.VENUGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.H.R.CHOWDARY The Court made the following : ORDER: (PER GM,J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent in No.T5/G/B5/1/MMZ/90-91 dated 06-07-1992 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in No.C/T5/G/B5/1/MMZ/90-91 dated 09-09-1992 and the subsequent proceedings of the 4th respondent in No.P.94/SC/BND/1645 dated 29-03-1993 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into service as Driver-B by paying him the salary and arrears due to him. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Driver in South Central Railway. On 12-04-1990 he was directed to work on Down Wadi Goods Train at 22.05 hours from Bellampalli. The train, after negotiating the up gradient at 244 KMs, entered into down gradient section and he started controlling the train. At that time, the brake power was only 65% and unfortunately the train came to halt in neutral section and his eﬀorts to contact the Controller proved futile. To avoid detention to Dakshin Express, which was closely following the goods train, he resorted to release of vaccum in brake van and alerted the Guard of goods train to apply hand brakes when the vaccum is released. Due to lack of vaccum, he could not control the train and the train admitted on signals into Mandamarri loop line. The train ﬁnally stopped at I.B. signals at KM 253/20 after passing Mandamarri Station and on the advice of Assistant Station Master of Mandamarri, he proceeded to Mancherial. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not well acquainted with the electric brake power. The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings and by the order dated 06-07-1992 the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of ‘removal from service’. On an appeal, the Appellate Authority by the order dated 09-09-1992 modiﬁed the punishment of ‘removal from service’ to that of ‘compulsory retirement’. On a revision petition ﬁled by the petitioner, the Revisional Authority by the order dated 29-3-1993 conﬁrmed the order of the Appellate Authority. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.996 of 1995 and by the order dated 28-04-1998 the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the incident occurred only due to non- availability of vaccum, which is a technical defect. He further contended that in fact the petitioner could avert an accident and no damage was caused in the incident but the authorities have failed to consider that aspect and also failed to consider the recommendations made by the expert committee and since there is no ﬁnding by the enquiry oﬃcer with regard to ‘negligence’, the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’ imposed on the petitioner at the age of 52 years is highly excessive. It is also contended that since the punishment is one of ‘compulsory retirement’, the authorities may be directed to take the age of retirement as 58 years instead of 52 years, only for the purpose of ﬁxing the pension, without any monitory benefits or back wages. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for railways contended that since the petitioner failed to make use of new technology and stop the train by applying electric brake system, the charge framed against him is proved and the Tribunal has rightly observed that the punishment of ‘removal from service’ which was modiﬁed by the Appellate Authority to that of ‘compulsory retirement’ is not disproportionate and further contended that only after taking into consideration the recommendations of the expert committee, the Appellate Authority modiﬁed the punishment to that of ‘compulsory retirement’ and so the order of the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court. 5. As per the material placed on record, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to learn new technology and also failed to make use of electric brake system and so it is a clear case of negligence and the ﬁnding arrived at by the disciplinary authority cannot be found fault with. Since the Appellate Authority took into consideration the recommendations made by the expert committee and reduced the punishment from ‘removal of service’ to that of ‘compulsory retirement’, the revisional authority has rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. In those circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or illegality in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for railways submitted that the petitioner reached maximum salary and was awarded maximum pension and so now there is no need to take the age of retirement as 58 years only for the purpose of fixing the pension. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ------------------------------ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 10th September 2008 CVRK