3c/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HO N. M. R R .N. CND HARAKAR, J'J PETITIONER S. Nasir Ahmed, aged abouf 55 years, Depu‘ry VSTa’rion Manager, Gevr‘a Sa‘H‘ar‘ S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India, fhr‘ough General Manager, S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur' Division, Bilaspur‘ (CG) . Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur‘ . Addi’rionai Manager, S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG); Senior Divisional Operation Manager, S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). . Divisional Ahmed, S/o Lafe S. Road, Railway Sfa‘rion, Division, Bilaspur (CG). Divisional Railway OperaTion Manager (M) S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). . Addifional Area Manager, S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). . Seniors Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway Zone, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C6) Presen‘r: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocafe For The pe‘ii’rioner. For fhe respondents. O R D E R (Passed on _l_é_l June, 2009) Dhirendra Mishr-a .T ’1. The pefifioner by ’rhis pefii’ion under Ar’ricle 226 of The Consii'rufion of India has impugned fhe order dafed 16.3.2004 (Annexure P—32) passed by ’rhe Cen’rral Adminisfrafive n79 TribunaL Jabalpur‘ Bench, Jabalpur (for short ‘The Tribunal') in O.A. No.319/2000 whereby The pe‘ri’rioner's original applica’rion against The or‘der‘ da’red 15.2.2000 (Annexur'e P-31) passed by respondem‘ No.3—Addifional Divisional Manager has been dismissed. 2. Briefiy s’rafed, fac’rs of ’rhe case ar'e fhaf The peTiTioner‘ was appoinTed as “Shed Khalasi' under The Head Train Examiner from 18.3.1997. On The complain’r of his former wife an offence under SecTion 406 of The Indian Penal Code was regisTered in Vijainagaram Police STaTion. The peTiTioner was Tried for The aforesaid offence in The CourT of Addifional Judicial MagisTrafe 1“ Class, Vijainagaram, who vide judgmenT daTed 9.8.1991 (Annexure P-10) convicTed and senfenced The peTiTioner To undergo 5.I. for 3 monThs and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in defaulf of paymenT of fine addiTional S.I. for 2 mon’rhs. The peTiTioner deposiTed The fine on The same day. His senfence was also suspended. The peTiTioner preferred an appeal againsf his convicfion and The same was allowed vide judgmenT daTed 23.8.1993 (Annexure P—23). FaTher of peTiTioner's' former wife senT a compIainT To respondenT No.2? Divisional Railway Manager on 9.11.1991 informing abouT The convicTion of The peTiTioner. RespondenT No.2 referred The maTTer To The Senior Divisional OperaTing SuperinTendenT, Bilaspur for invesTigaTion. A memo was also issued To The peTiTioner To submiT his represenTaTion. The peTiTioner submiTTed his represenTaTion on 25.1.1992. The peTiTioner was again called upon To submiT his reply wiTh documenTs. NoT saTisfied wiTh The reply, The peTiTioner was placed under suspension vide order daTed 21.5.1992, however, his suspension was subsequenTly revoked and he was allowed To join his duTies on 24.7.1992. AfTer receiving cerTified copy of The judgmenT of acquiTTal by The Sessions CourT, The 4. . ’47 , ‘arVz,’ pefifioner‘ submitted The same 'ro fhe depar‘rmen’r. However, fhe depar’rmenf did nof drop ’rhe D&R case and ulfima‘rely issued a charge shee‘r To fhe pefifioner'. The Enquiry Officer af’rer comple’rion of enquiry submi‘rted his enquiry repor’r daTed 28.2.1996 (Annexure P—25) wifh a finding ’rha'r charge againsi The pe‘rifioner is proved. Accepting ’rhe finding of fhe Enquiry Officer recorded in fhe enquiry reporf, ’rhe Divisional Opera‘rion Manager (M&L), S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur vide order da’red 30.8.1999‘(Annexure P—26) held ’rha'r arficle of charge mem‘ioned in The charge memorandum has been proved, The peTiTioner is guiITy of charge memorandum and accordingly, imposed penaITy of removal from The railway service wiTh immediaTe effecT. AgainsT The order of punishmenf of removal from service, The peTiTioner preferred a mercy appeal of Annexure P—27 before respondenT No.4- AppellaTe AuThoriTy, who vide order daTed 28.9.1999 (Annexure P-28) rejecTed The same. ThereafTer, The peTiTioner preferred revision peTiTion againsT The order‘of rejecTion of his mercy appeal and during The pendency of revision peTiTion, The peTiTioner also filed an original applicaTion before The Tribunal. During The pendency of The original applicaTion before The Tribunal, The revision peTiTion was decided by respondenf No.3 vide order daTed 15.2.2000 (Annexure P—31) and while affirming The orders passed by The Disciplinary AuThoriTy ThaT The charge againsT The peTiTioner has been proved beyond reasonable doubTs, The punishmenT imposed upon The peTiTioner was modified in The following Terms:— “Sri S. Nasir Ahmed is re-insTaTed and reduced To a pay of Rupees 5000/— in The pay scale Rs.5000~8000 for a .period of 5 (five) years wiTh effecT from The daTe of l, . " ‘j/w/ h passing this order. The enfir'e peripd of ’rhis punishment should operafe To posfpone fu’rur'e increments." The pefifioner affer joining his du‘ry in compliance of ’rhe modified order of punishment filed on applicafion for wifhdrawal of earlier original applicafion before fhe Tribunal and fhe same was allowed vide order da'red 23.3.2000. 3.Learned counsel for The pe’ri‘rioner submi’rs fhaf ”the deparfmem‘al proceeding was iniTiafed againsf ’rhe pe’ri’rioner in connecfion wi‘rh The misconducT which was noThing To do wiTh his discharge of duTy. The offence was regisTered‘ on The basis of complainT filed by The peTiTioner's former wife. The peTiTioner was finally acquiTTed by The compeTenT courT. The peTiTioner did noT resorT To any suppression as alleged in The charge sheeT. He submiTTed oall The documenTs in The deparTmenT. 4. On The oTher hand, learned counsel for respondenTs argued ThaT Though The peTiTioner was acquiTTed by The AppellaTe CourT buT The peTiTioner deliberaTeIy concealed The facT of , his prosecuTion in a criminal case and convicTion by The Tria’l’ courT. ConducT of The peTiTioner is a grave misconducT under The Railway Services (ConducT) Rules, 1966. DeparTmenTal enquiry was conducTed againsT The peTiTioner and he was afforded ample opporTuniTies’To defend himself. The Enquiry Officer on The basis of evidence available on record reached To The conclusion ThaT charge framed againsT The peTiTioner was proved. The Disciplinary AuThoriTy accepTing The findings of The Enquiry Officer held The peTiTioner guilTy of The charge and imposed punishmenT of removal from The service. His mercy appeal was also dismissed by The AppellaTe AuThoriTy, however, revision peTiTion preferred by The peTiTioner was allowed and punishmenT of removal from .: 1 'i » erra. N QJx service was modified and The pe’rifioner's pay was reduced 1'0 Rupees 5000/- in The pay scale Rs.5000—8000 for a period of 5 (five) years wi’rh effecf from the da’re of passing ’rh‘is order. Punishmenf awarded To The pefifioner is jus’r and proper. .We have heard learned counsel for ’rhe parfies. We have perused ’rhe order of fhe fribunal, findings recorded in fhe enquiry report, order of punishmem‘ passed by The Disciplinary Aufhorify as'also the Appella‘re Au’rhori’ry. . Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and subsequently accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in mercy appeal are findings of fact based on the evidence available on record and the same are not perverse. We are also of the opinion that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate to the proved misconduct and the some does not call for interrence. Roshan/— 21=“ ’ .. ).’4‘ fe .In the result, the petition has no substance, the sam’e \ deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ‘ Sd/- ll W? l R.N.CHANDRAKAR. s Sd/- .5 fl l- l V l ‘l Judge i Dhirendra Mishra l Judge 3i 1Q/06/2009