CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 24, 2011 Dharamvir ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate, for Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner/applicant has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity—'the Tribunal'), vide which the original application filed by him for quashing the charge sheet dated 14.7.2005, punishment order dated 12.12.2006, appellate order dated 22.3.2007 and the revisional order dated 9.8.2007, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was directly appointed as Khalasi (unskilled CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 2 Class IV) and worked as such in the Railway Department from 1983 to 12.12.2006. While working as such at Hisar, he was served with the following charge sheet: “ Charge No.1 All Deputy Station Incharge and Indoor Assistant Station Master have given in writing that you violated their orders, Therefore, working with you has become difficult. Charge No.2 You refuse to give token to train standing in yard on the pretext that you do not know the line number. Charge No.3 You are asked to get enter remarks of driver in Unusual Occurrence Register then you give reply to Assistant Station Master there is no such requirement and say that you yourself ask driver about unusual occurrence and yourself write incident as Nil. By not obeying the orders of your office, you commit violation of Para No. 2.06 (a) and (b) of Normal and Station Regulatory Rules. Charge No.4 On 01.06.2005 you did not replace the stretcher of 2 B.H/1- R.H. passenger train and refuse to receive the memo about this given by Indoor Assistant Station Master. In this way, by not obeying the orders of your officers, refusal to give token, not taking remarks from driver in Unusual Occurrence, writing yourself Nil and not replacing the stretcher shows negligence towards Railway Rules and your duty which CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 3 is against the conduct of a Railway employee. In view of above, you have violated the para No. 3 (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.” 3. Dinesh Kumar Sharma was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who after the inquiry submitted his report regarding the findings on all the charges against him. The petitioner submitted objections to the inquiry report. However, the appointing authority passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2006, removing him from service. He preferred an appeal before the appellate court but the same was rejected. He further preferred a revision before the revisional authority, who modified the order of punishment to that of compulsory retirement. 4. The petitioner challenged those orders by moving the original application before the Tribunal, in which he pleaded that in the railway establishment, the train and safety related work are required to be manned by the skilled staff working on the operating side fulfilling the specific eligibility attached to them. The work of Khalasis does not involve any train/traffic operating works and safety work as they are unskilled workers. The main allegations in the charges against him was that he did not obey the order of the officers, refused to give token to the train, did not enter the remarks of driver in Unusual Occurrence Register and did not remove the stretchers. All these works were not included in his duties. The Inquiry Officer initiated the inquiry proceedings without waiting for his reply to the charge sheet. The written submissions given by him before the Inquiry Officer were not taken into consideration. The punishing authority imposed the penalty without fully considering the objections submitted by him to the inquiry report. The appeal preferred by him against that order was rejected CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 4 without application of independent mind and by means of non speaking order. Even modified order, passed in revision, of compulsory retirement is the outcome of the charge-sheet served upon him. The charges levelled against him were not of such nature that the same can be described as negligence on his part as gravest misconduct. The punishment imposed upon is shockingly disproportionate. 5. The respondents in their written statement, while justifying the impugned orders, controverted the contentions of the petitioner. They pleaded that the petitioner was a part of the operating department staff, as per the seniority list of Khalasis on the traffic side and was required to perform duties assigned and the instructions issued to him by the on duty Station Master/Assistant Station Master/Deputy Station Superintendent. Rule 2.6 of the General & Subsidiary Rules, provides that every railway servant shall promptly observe and obey all the rules and special instructions as also the lawful orders given by his superiors. As per Rule 10 of the Station Working Rules, all Class IV employees at the station are required to perform, besides their normal duties, such other duties in connection with train working, as may be entrusted by the Station Master on duty. For example, pulling of signal lever under the direct supervision of the Station Master, carrying of line clear authority to train driver, loading/unloading of packages, closing of doors of covered empty wagons etc. In fact, all the staff members in the station are responsible for the correct performance of any other duties assigned to them. Therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner to obey the instructions and the orders given by his superiors, which he failed to do. He was required to submit his reply to the charge sheet within 10 days but he failed to do so, inspite of issuance of the CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 5 reminders. The disciplinary authority passed the order after going through all the facts and the defence submitted by the petitioner. Even the appellate authority passed the order after going through the documents and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. The punishment was imposed after following the procedure and considering all the aspects of the case and it commensurates with the gravity of misconduct. 6. After going through the pleadings of the parties and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the Tribunal dismissed the original application, vide impugned order. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he could not have been penalized for the non performance of the work, which was not included in his duties as Khalasi and that his appeal was disposed of by means of a non-speaking order and that the punishment imposed upon him does not commensurate with the act complained of. 9. All these aspects of the case were duly gone into by the Tribunal and the findings were recorded against the petitioner. After having gone through the order of the Tribunal and the record, we do not find that those findings suffer from any such legal infirmity. The petitioner could not have taken excuse that non obeyed orders, which form the basis of the charge-sheet, were not a part of his official duties as Khalasi. As per the rules quoted in the written statement by the respondents, he could have been asked by his superiors to do those acts as the same were directly connected with the railways and were the official duties. He disobeyed the orders of his superiors which amounts to misconduct on his part and insubordination also. Neither the Tribunal nor this Court can appreciate the evidence CWP No. 7886 CAT of 2011 6 produced before the Inquiry Officer. The only duty of the Tribunal and of this Court is to see if there is any procedural lapse during the disciplinary proceedings or whether the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based upon no evidence or on total misreading of the evidence. It is neither the case of the petitioner pleaded in the original application nor such case was made out during the arguments. In the revision, the punishment of removal from service was set aside and order was passed for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It cannot be said that this order is disproportionate to the misconduct complained of. The authorities have already taken lenient view. 10. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 24, 2011 prem