C.KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Cabin Man of Southern Railway, Palakkad Division. He was proceeded against under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and was dismissed from service. He had challenged the proceedings initiated against him before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the CAT" for short) in O.A.No.616 of 2005. The CAT has on a consideration of the materials on record found that the disciplinary proceedings as well as punishments imposed on the petitioner were proper. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the CAT.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner was that, on 28.7.1994 while on duty at Manjeswaram, he had under the influence of the alcohol misbehaved with and abused the Station Master. The statement of imputation said that, he should not have taken any alcoholic drinks while on duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges alleging that, the charges leveled against him were vague, ambiguous and not capable of facilitating him to furnish proper explanation for want of specific details. According to him, the incident alleged having occurred long back, in the absence of specific details such as name of the Station Master, with whom he had allegedly misbehaved, details of the place where the incident had taken place, he was not in a position to properly defend the case. However, he denied that he had consumed alcohol and had been under the influence of liquor. Since his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, the disciplinary authority instituted enquiry.

(3.) The Enquiry Officer, after enquiry found that the charges had been proved. As per Annexure -A8 report that forms part of Ext.P3, it was found that the charge against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner thereupon submitted Annexure -A9 representation questioning the enquiry proceedings as well as the findings in the report of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority considered the report, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found him to be a person who was not fit to continue in Railway service. Accordingly, he was removed from service.