UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22-9-1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 456 of 1991.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the respondent No. 2 was working as a Permanent Way Inspector under the South Eastern Railways. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 2. In the said departmental enquiry two articles of charge were framed against respondent No. 2. The two articles of charge are as follows :--

(3.) Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the two charges against the respondent No. 2 were serious in nature and, had been proved in the departmental enquiry. He vehemently argued that since it has been established in the departmental enquiry that the respondent No. 2 had failed to maintain absolute integrity in the discharge of his duty and has also misappropriated 251 numbers of New Wooden Crossings Sleepers and thereby put the Railway to heavy financial loss, the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct and should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal in the impugned order. He submitted that the Supreme Court has held in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., reported in : (1996)ILLJ1231SC , that it is only when the Tribunal finds that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shocking, it will interfere with the punishment and remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent and only in exceptional and rare cases the Tribunal can impose a lesser punishment. He also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, reported in : (2000)IILLJ648SC as well as Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, reported in AIR 2005 SCW 2005 for the proposition that the Tribunal will not interfere with the order of punishment unless the same is wholly irrational or illegal. He submitted that in this case, the Tribunal while reducing the punishment from one of removal to compulsory retirement has recorded some findings of negligence against some superior officers and junior officers which are not based on any material in the records of the departmental enquiry.