IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8027 of 2005 Between: 1 The Unionof India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Manthralaya, Railway Board, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Banarasi, S/o. Kasiram, C/o. Shri Omar Khan, Flat No. 265, I-Floor, Public Sector Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, AP. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of the Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 23-11-2004 rendered in O.A.No. 1406 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as it is contrary to law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.C.V.VINITHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Mr.J. Sudheer, Advocate The Court made the following : ORDER :: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 8027 of 2005 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 23-11-2004 passed in OA No.1406 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 2. The writ petitioners are the respondents in the OA and the applicant in the OA is the respondent herein. 3. Facts stated are:- The applicant joined the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers i.e. IRSME in the year 1980 as a Probationer and later he was posted as Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Carriage and Wagon) and worked at various places. It is stated that he was promoted as Senior Scale Executive Assistant to the Divisional Railway Manager in the year 1984. The applicant while working in DCW, Patiala, was transferred to South Central Railway, Secunderabad, vide Railway Board’s order dated 27-8-1999. Accordingly, he was relieved on 31-8-1999 by the Chief Administrative Officer, DCW/Patiala. However, the applicant reported to duty at South Central Railway, Secunderabad, only on 6-10-2000 by remaining absent from duty from 1-9-1999 to 5-10-2000 to which a charge memo dated 24-2- 2001 was issued to the applicant and he submitted his representation on 26-4-2003. That after going through the charge sheet and the representation of the applicant, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted in accordance with Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, for short ‘the Rules’. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to which the applicant submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 13-10-2001. It is stated that 1st petitioner herein without considering the said representation in the proper perspective, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, against which, the applicant made a petition to the Hon’ble President of India on 24-1- 2003. Since no action has been taken on the said petition, the applicant moved the Tribunal by way of the present OA. 4. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, while observing that quantum of punishment imposed on the applicant has shocked its conscience, remanded the case to the Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. The operative portion of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is thus: “The Tribunal therefore quashes the impugned punishment order, since it shocks conscience of the Tribunal keeping in view the past-unblemished record of the Applicant. The case is remanded back to DA for reconsideration and to impose lesser punishment. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 months.” 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways- petitioners strenuously contended that the Tribunal erred in hold that the applicant had an unblemished record and directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a less punishment. Learned counsel submitted stated that on earlier occasions the applicant was guilty of specific charges including unauthorized absence. It is further contended that inasmuch as the applicant had an unblemished record was not pleaded in the grounds before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the applicant had an unblemished record and even in case of unblemished record of an employee, the same cannot be base for interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel stated that the following are the punishments imposed on the applicant on earlier occasions:- a. 1992 : Minor penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect for 6 months. b. 1993 : Major penalty of reduction of pay by three stages in the grade with cumulative effect c. 1998 : Minor penalty of with holding of annual increment for six months without cumulative effect. d. 1998 : Minor penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for two years without cumulative effect. e. 2000 : Major penalty of reduction by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. f. 2002 : Minor penalty of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 6. In the support of the contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in BC CHATURVEDI vs. UNION OF INDIA1 & STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SINGH N. MARAK.2 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant- respondent contended that the Disciplinary Authority without considering any of the contentions raised in the explanation submitted by the applicant, imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service and as the same did not commensurate with the charge alleged and proved, the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter for imposing a lesser punishment. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant could not join in his new station at South Central Railway, Secunderabad, as he was not issued with any transfer pass in spite of issuing telegrams to various officials including CRB and General Manager, SCR. Learned counsel also contended that the delay in joining at the new station cannot be attributed to him and considering all these aspects of the matter the Tribunal rightly directed to re-consider imposing a lesser punishment to the Disciplinary Authority. 8. In this case, the disciplinary proceedings were conducted as per the Rules. The duly constituted enquiry provided the applicant opportunities as per principles of natural justice to prove his innocence. The representation made by the applicant following the inquiry report was also duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and advice of Union Public Service Commission, as per statutory requirements, was also obtained, thereafter, the final punishment order was passed. The specific charge against the applicant, as noted above, was that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly from 1-9-1999 to 5-10-2000 as detailed in the statement of imputations. The reasons assigned by the applicant for such a delay in reporting to duty at SCR, Secunderabad, was on account of non-issuance of transfer pass to him in spite of issuing telegrams to various officials including CRB and General Manager, SCR. It is settled proposition of law that having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority has power and jurisdiction to impose punishment and in review, the Tribunal or this Court would not weigh the correctness or otherwise of the quantum of punishment imposed and function as a Court of appeal. 9. In BC Chaturvedi’s case (1 supar) the Apex Court at para 19 observed thus: “The Tribunal in this case held that the appellant had put in 30 years of service. He Had a brilliant academic record. He was successful in the competitive examination and was selected as a class I officer. He earned promotion after the disciplinary proceeding was initiated. It would be difficult to get a new job or to take a new profession after 50 years and he is “no longer fit to continue in government service.” Accordingly, it substituted the punishment of dismissal from service to one of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority. We find that the reasoning is wholly unsupportable. The reasons are not relevant nor germane to modify the punishment……” 10. In Meeken Singh’s case (2 supar) the Apex Court at para 9 observed thus: “The jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. The High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to juridical review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.” 11. In this case the Tribunal having found that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocked its consciences and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re- consideration, but ought not to have directed to impose a lesser punishment and that part of the direction is wholly uncalled and in the circumstances of the case that portion of the direction of the Tribunal in the impugned order is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the file of Disciplinary Authority for re- consideration of the matter and such re-reconsideration shall be limited to only the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the applicant and not to any other question/aspect. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _____________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 6-3-2009 Nrg. .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} 1 1995 (6) SCC 749 2 AIR 200 SC 2862