•l-y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.N0.65 / 2002 CORAM : Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri bilip Kcxosaheb beshmukh, Judge PETETIONER RESPONDENTS 1. W.J.Massey, 5/o Late John Ma iey, Aged about 50 years, Ex-(5uard (5ra i-C, Resident of Tarbahar, Near 6hoA ana School, Bilaspur, Chhattis9arh VERSUS The Central Administrative Tril nal, Bench at Jabalpur Madhya Pra :sh, through its Registrar. Union of India, Through Ge sral Manager, South Eaatern Railway, 6< den Reach Road, Calcutta, (W.B) bivisional Operations AAanager, ! uth Eastern Railway, Bilaspur Div ion, Bitaspur (C.6.) Senior Divisional Operations Man )er, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur biv ion, Bilaspur, (C.6.) Present; - Shri B.D.fiuru, learned counsel for the petitioner. t>r. N.ICShukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Deepak P( dey learned Counsei for the respondents No.2, 3 & 4. ORAL ORbER -.w (Passed on 30" s January, 2006) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK, CJ. 1. The departmentat enquiry initiated against the peti-t ner has uitimately resulted in the imposition of compi. iory retirement as a disciplinary measure on a p ven ^ ~ r.. .:,x- -fc- misconduct of the petitioner. The petitioner, t ing aggrieved by the said disciplinary action, instituted Ori ia! Application No.173/1996 before the Centr'o.l Administn ive Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short he Tribunal ) on various 9rounds. The Tribunal, how 'er finding no merit in any of the grounds, by its order di ed 12-10-2001 dismissed the Ori9inal Application. Hence, i\s Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the ConstitL on of India. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. B.&.Suru, iearned counsel for the petitioner would urge foliowing three grounds in support of the Writ Petition (i) that the Divisional Operations Mana9er, S< Eastern Railway, Bilaspur tiivision, Bi!aspur the t respondent herein was not competent to impose penalty of compulsory retirement on the petiti< and such an order ought to have been imposed by the Officer who had appointed the petitione the post of Assistant ©uardby way of promotion; (ii) that the third respondent before passing the 1 order did not issue any notice to the petitioner < regard to the proposed penalty of compui; retirement; and (iii) that the enquiry conducted against the petitic was vitiated for violation of principles of nat justice inasmuch as the disciplinary authority did furnish the relevant documents to the petitii: despite his request in that re9ard. in he th rd he er ily ry er •al ot ar n,i^ —•5 — 3. Learned Senior Counselfor the Railways, per contra, i 'uld support the impugned action as well as the order mac by the Tribunal and would contend that no ground was ide out by the petitioner for this Court to step in L der Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Indi to interfere with the impugned orders. Having heard learned counset for the parties, we dc io1- find any merit in any of the thrce contentions urge by Shri B.b.Suru. The first contention was urged before I'he Tr'ibundl also for its decision-making. It is pointed OL by the Tribunal, which is not disputed before us that rhe Divisional Operations Manager-the third respondent he sin, is a superior Officer to that of Senior Divisional Pers< nel Officer by two grades. In addition, at the relevant poii of time the petitioner delinquent was holding the pay-scc of Rs. 1200-2040 <xnd as per the Railways Servants (bisci! ine & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rutes'), the appoir ing authorit/ for persons holding the pay scale of fts.li )0- 2040/- was a Senior Scale Officer. It mi9ht be that i ien the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assis int fiuard by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer vuho u s a Junior Administrative Grade Officer, but, by the time he penalty was imposed on the petitioner, he was admitt jly hoiding the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and there-1 r-e, major penolty of compulsory retirement could have 1 ®n imposed in terms of !aw only by a Senior Administn ive Qrade Officer (other thoui birector) in terms of the r ss. / <\i^- ^ - In that view of the matter the competency and autfi< ity of the thir-d respondent to impose the penalty of compulsor'y retirement on the petitioner o.s a disciplii ry measure could not be questioned. 5. The second contention urged by Shri 6uru was to1 l!y misconceived and not tenable in law. l-1ere is a case wh "e admitt'edly the petitioner has had two opportunities to defend himself, namely, before initiation of le departmentat enquiry ond after the conclusion of enqi 'y and return of findings of the enquiring authority to ie disciplinary authority to have his say in the matter. E t, the argument of Shri B.D.Suru is that even after • e submission of his reply to the second show cause notice y disciplinciry outhority on receipt of the findings returr d by the enquiring authority, the disciplincry authorit/ oui t to have issued one more notice to the petitioner propos 3 penalt/. The right thus, claimed to the third notice is r t iegally available right of the petitioner. We pointedly ask 1 the leamed counsel for the petitioner whether o / statutory regulation or administrative instruction issued / the department does provide for issuance of third noti : proposing penalty, leamed counsel for the petitioner w i not in a position to place before us any such statutory n. : or the administrative instruction to support his oir-gumei that the disciptinary authority ought to have issued notii to the petitioner proposing the penalty of compulsoi retirement before it actualiy passed the order marked ( Annexure P-2 dated 29-07-1993. - ^ — 5" 6. The third contention is required to be noticed only to be rejected. We have carefully perused the jud9ment of Tribunal. It appears to us that the third contention urged before us, was not urged before the Tribunal at all for decision-making. The question whether the petitioner sought for the copies of relevant documents and whether they were refused by the disciplinary authority/enquiring officer are all matters of fact. In addition, it needs to be noticed that as repeatedly held and reiterated by the Courts that it is not that the Court would be justified in stepping in under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India upsetting the disciplinary action taken by disciplinary authority against a delinquent-official on the basis of each ond every lapse or infraction of procedural rule, but in order to do that the Court should satisfy itself that the violation of principles of natural justice or procedural rules has resulted in substontial injustice to the delinquent. 7. No other points were urged before us to assait the correctness of the impu9ned order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accor'dingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justfce Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge