MANOJ AVINASH DHANDEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 in Original Application No.188 of 2012 and order dated 14.07.2016 in Review Application No.40 of 2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. By the impugned order, order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 was confirmed.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under:-

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the conduct of the petitioner during the incident cannot be termed to be irresponsible, negligent or careless, as on account of his immediate action, the accident or damage to the property was avoided. It is submitted that right from beginning, defence of the petitioner was that while nearing the signal, as per his duty he loudly called out the signal aspect. However, the Loco Pilot, who is superior to him and responsible for running of train, did not respond and therefore, without wasting time, the petitioner himself opened the RS valve, lowered the Pento to bring the running train to halt. However, the train overshoot the signal by 40 to 50 meters. He drew attention of this Court to the documents, especially joint observation report, which observed that it was only the driver (Loco Pilot) who was responsible for overshooting the signal. He thereafter drew attention of this Court to the conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of statement of the witnesses recorded to the effect that the petitioner had, in fact, given calls and thereafter opened RS valve and lowered the pento, bringing moving train to halt. The Inquiry Officer, however, held that the petitioner is not "entirely responsible". It is submitted that considering these factual aspects, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the punishment imposed.