LALA RANGJI BABARIYA GANGMATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.Dilip B.Rana for the petitioner and Ms.Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate for the respondent No.1.

(2.) PETITIONER was serving as Gangman under Western Railways. During his duty as Gangman, on 22.2.1999, a Train No.48 was derailed. For such incident, Railways have initiated inquiry and chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 10.5.1999 for the careless and negligent work as Gangman, which resulted into derailment of the train. On 16.9.1999,. the Inquiry Officer had submitted the inquiry report. On 18.9.1999, petitioner has submitted his defence in such inquiry. The main defence of the petitioner was to the effect that there is sudden variation of cross level in transition portion at the entry of the curve and, therefore, requested to exonerate him from the charges. However, after the inquiry, respondent has decided to impose penalty under Rule 6 of the Railway Service (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1968. Accordingly, by an order dated 27.11.1999, petitioner was awarded with punishment whereby his services was reduced with immediate effect to a lower grade as Keyman for a period of 3 years with future effect with loss of seniority, based upon the finding of the Inquiry Officer and final defence dated 2.10.1999 by the present petition. For imposing such penalty, a speaking order was also passed, wherein it is found that the petitioner has, in addition to technical plea that in fact that he was not posted at the particular place to work, but the Department, relying upon the duty-list and record of the office, found that in fact petitioner was posted at the place where the incident of derailment had taken place and that site work was allotted to him. It is further found during the inquiry that in final defence, the petitioner has changed his version regarding the actual place of his posting and tried to convince the authority that incident has taken place because there was a curve on rail-line at the place of derailment. The Department has found that the petitioner has failed to maintain gangbeat in safe condition for passage of track, which resulted into derailment of the train.

(3.) THE learned advocate Mr.Rana for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the observations of this Hon'ble Court in judgment and order dated 14.2.2007 in Special Civil Application No.1179 of 2004 for imposing lesser punishment to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner had not worked at the site of derailment as a Gangman and that other Gangmates were not penalised. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was subordinate to other responsible Officers, including Shri R.K.Ved, CPWI, considering the punishment imposed upon Shri Ved, which is lesser than the punishment imposed upon the present petition, there is discrimination and improprietoriness in the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the factual details regarding the actual place of derailment, submitting that petitioner was not on duty on that place itself. Lastly it is submitted that in any case, imposing the penalty is on higher side.