IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19439 of 2009(S) -------------------------------- OA.530/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ I.S.MOHANDAS, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.I.SANKKUNNI MASTER, RETD.SENIOR ENGINEER, EAST COAST RAILWAY, RESIDING AT IMBRANGATTIYIL HOUSE, PUNNIYOORKULAM P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST COAST RAILWAY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHUVANESWAR. 3. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SHAJAHAN ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. R1, R2, AND R4 BY ACGSC SRI. N.B. SUNILNATH R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19439 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 27.1.2009 in O.A.No.530/2007. The petitioner was a senior Engineer under the Railways. On the eve of his retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and before final orders could be passed, he retired from service. Therefore, the punishment of reduction of pension by 10% for five years was imposed on him by Annexure A8 order. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the Original Application. Hence, this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure A1 charge sheet containing the following allegations. “Article -1 As per condition of contract, cement and steel for the above work was to be supplied by M/s.B.B.Nanda, Contractor. In contravention to the contract condition, Railway cement and Steel was issued to the Contractor by IOW. But Sri.Mohan Das recorded false certificate that “no Railway material was issued to the contractor” at the WPC No.19439/09 - 2 - time of passing of on account of bills of contractor based on which payments were made to the contractor without any recovery for cement and steel issued, extending undue benefit to the contractor. Article-II. Sri. I.S.Mohan Das failed to ensure proper check on the source of supply of cement and steel for the above work to the contractor by IOW, which resulted in issue of huge quantity of Railway materials in excess of the actual requirement. For this act, unmerited benefit was extended to the contractor and Railway suffered a monetary loss of minimum Rs.23,71,790/- (approx) because of misappropriation of Railway cement and steel which had been issued to M/s. B.B.Nanda, contractor.” 3. The petitioner filed his reply denying those allegations. Since the reply was not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted Annexure A4 report finding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The copy of the enquiry report was served on the writ petitioner and after following the due procedure, by Annexure A8, the aforementioned punishment was imposed on him by the Government. Since the punishment was imposed by the Government, he has no other statutory remedy and therefore, he challenged that order before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Ext.P1 Original Application. According to him, he is totally innocent. The work in relation to which allegations were raised against him was not a work for which materials were to be issued by the Department. In fact, the WPC No.19439/09 - 3 - contractor should bring the materials for executing the work. Therefore, his certification that no material has been issued to the contractor is only an empty formality. Further, supervisory lapses cannot be attributed to him for not detecting the secret illegal activities of his subordinates. The respondents filed Ext.P2 reply statement. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 rejoinder. The Tribunal after hearing both sides dismissed the Original Application. It proceeded on the footing that the petitioner has admitted his guilt which, according to the petitioner, is factually not correct. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, he preferred Ext.P6 review petition. The said review petition was dismissed by Ext.P7. Challenging Exts.P5 and P7 orders, this writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel canvassed the same point raised before the C.A.T. before us also. Going by the charges, the main allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a certificate, “no railway material was issued to the contractor” at the time of passing of the bills of the contractor. Though the petitioner contended hat this is an empty formality, the fact remains that, based on that certificate, amounts were released to the contractor without any further checking. As a result, the value of the materials supplied to the contractor was not deducted from the contract amount. The supervisory role of the writ petitioner over Mr.Alok Gosh, the Inspector of Works, who is his subordinate, cannot be disputed, though WPC No.19439/09 - 4 - the extent of the same can be the subject matter of dispute between the parties. In other words, the contention of the petitioner that he is in no way responsible for the actions of the subordinate, cannot be countenanced. Going by the above admitted position, we feel that the action against the petitioner was justified. Going by the loss caused to the Railways, the penalty imposed on him is only of a minor nature. The contention of the writ petitioner that findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence cannot be accepted. The admission of the petitioner that he issued the certificate that no materials were issued to the contractor and that Mr. Alok Gosh was a subordinate of the petitioner are sufficient to sustain the punishment imposed on him. So, the contention to the contrary raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. We find nothing wrong in the orders of the Tribunal, either in the original order or in the review order. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)