V PERUMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is aggrieved against the order of the central Administrative Tribunal dated 13. 09. 2000 passed in O. A. No. 676 of 1998, has come forward with this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Station Master of virudhunagar Junction at the relevant point of time. On 01. 04. 1992, he was performing duty in the South Cabin at 20 to 24 hours at Virudhunagar Junction. While so, he was stated to have permitted despatch signals to be taken off for passenger Train No. 109 to leave from road 4 without ensuring the setting and locking of points for correct route to enable the said train to enter Maniyachi junction side instead of Tenkasi Junction side. As the said conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the Provisions of GR 338 (a) and (B) of the relevant rules, he was issued with a Memorandum of Charge dated 27. 08. 1992. THE petitioner submitted his explanation dated 25. 01. 1993. THEreafter, an enquiry was held in which the petitioner participated. THE petitioner asked for the combined Train Report and the relevant Control Chart of that day in one of his letters dated 29. 10. 1992. THE petitioner was permitted to peruse the records and he also perused the same on 10. 11. 1992. THE petitioner asked for some more documents. THE 1st respondent/railways took the stand that such documents were not relevant and therefore, not necessary. THEreafter, the Disciplinary authority, considering the petitioner's explanation, imposed a minor penalty in exercise of his power under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1968, and thereby his annual increment was withheld for a period of 36 months, which was otherwise due on 01. 08. 1993. THE order of punishment was dated 12. 05. 1993. THE petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate authority, by his order dated 06. 09. 1994, confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner. THE petitioner also preferred a revision to the Personnel branch of the Headquarters at Chennai, which was also disposed of on 26. 02. 1998 and the Revisional Authority also declined to interfere with the punishment.

(3.) MR. Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended before us that the respondents/railways deliberately failed to produce the Combined Train Report and the Control Chart as that would have otherwise revealed that no incident as alleged against the petitioner had taken place on that day. The learned counsel further contended that in the absence of any acceptable material evidence, merely on the basis of the oral version of the contesting respondents, the petitioner ought not to have been punished.