Southern Railway Officers Assn.& Anr vs Union Of India & Ors

5. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against L. Arputharaj. On the basis of a report submitted by the enquiry officer, he was imposed a punishment of dismissal from service against him. It is, however, stated that although an appeal from the said order was dismissed, on a revision preferred by the said delinquent official punishment of dismissal was set 3 aside and he was directed to be posted as Technician Grade III at the bottom of the scale with non recurring effect for a period of three years.

6. The delinquent employees came to the railway station. They started abusing Shri S.M. Krishnan with filthy language. He was said to have been assaulted. He and his family members were threatened to be killed if he goes to Chennai. Other railway officers were also present at the same place. The delinquent employees allegedly created ugly scene at the platform which was witnessed by several railway officers, staff and passengers who were waiting at the platform. An atmosphere of violence, general indiscipline and insubordination was prevailing at the railway station. The other officers were also threatened, intimidated and terrorized. The matter was reported to the Trichy Police station. On the basis of a statement made in this behalf, a First Information Report being No. 50 of 2004 was recorded.

7. K. Babu Rajendran was arrested on the same day while others were arrested after two weeks.

9. Appeals were preferred thereagainst. By separate orders, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeals not only upon taking into consideration the documents which were available with the disciplinary authority but also the newspaper clippings and the confidential reports of the employees of GOC shop. The said documents were kept confidential on their request as leaking thereof might endanger their lives as also security of their family members.

The revisional authority, however, while dismissing the revision application of K. Babu Rajendran, allowed in part the revision applications of other three delinquents stating :-

15. Both the parties preferred writ applications thereagainst. By reason of a common judgment and order dated 20th June, 2007, the writ applications filed by Union of India were dismissed and those of the aforementioned three delinquent employees were allowed.

( 2 ) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.;

25. We with respect are unable to agree therewith. 23 The disciplinary authority in its order dated 31st January, 2004 categorically stated :-

Krishnan as a result whereof he could not undertake the journey and had to go by road with escort.

" You along with other associates threatened, intimidated and terrorized all the officers. The atmosphere of violence, general indiscipline and insubordination is prevailing. In view of this situation I am convinced that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry."

i. The appeal is preferred within a period of 45 days from the date on which a copy of this notice is delivered.

ii. The appeal is to be preferred in your own name and presented to the authority to whom the appeal lies and does not contain any disrespectful and improper language."

32. It is not the case of the delinquent employees that the disciplinary authority in passing the said order took into consideration any irrelevant fact not germane therefor or failed to take into consideration any relevant fact.

33. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

34. This Court upon perusal of the entire record satisfied itself that the same was sufficient to dispense with the enquiry.

37. The said judgment is not an authority for the proposition that a right of appeal can be waived only because an undertaking had been given to comply with the order.

38. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same as well as the judgment of the Tribunal are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. No costs.