N.S CHAUHAN Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER/ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was working as Permanent Way Inspector under the Assistant Engineer, Northern Railway, Mirzapur. On 17-4-1984, a Food Grain Special derailed at level crossing No. 10 near the West Cabin of Railway Station near Mirzapur. An inquiry was held by a committee which found one R.P. Srivastava, Station Master, Berohi and one J. P. Singh, Deputy Chief Controller, Allahabad as the main persons responsible for the incident, apart from, one Lal Ram Switchman West Cabin, Berohi. The applicant was also found responsible for violating the provisions of Rule 204-a and 1406-a of Way Works Manual and G and S. R. Rules, 15.02. A copy of the extract of the findings of inquiry is at Annexure-A-1. On the basis of the inquiry report, the applicant was charge-sheeted for major penally. A copy of the charge-sheer dated 23-8-1984 is at Annexute-A-2. A departmental inquiry was held and the inquiry officer in its report submitted on 31-12-1984 (Annexure-A-3) found the applicant partially responsible for the failure of track maintenance in his capacity as over-all Sec. Incharge and re-commanded minor penalty. The disciplinary authority, however, by the impugned order dated 11-1-1985 (Annexure-A.4) Imposed a penalty of stoppage of 3 increments postponing future increment, with cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal which was rejected by the impugned order dated 6-1-1988 (Annexure-A.b). Thereupon, the applicant tiled this O.A. under Section. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging both are order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate order seeking the relief of quashing both the orders with all consequential benefits of pay seniority, promotion etc. which tho applicant has bean deprived of on account of the penalty imposed on him.

(2.) The applicants case is that he was neither directly nor indirectly responsible for the accident and he was wrongly held responsible for the same. It is also the case of the applicant that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind while imposing the penalty and had not even looked at the report of the inquiry officer. The other grounds taken are that he was not given reasonable opportunity during the inquiry proceedings which were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses arid not shown the documents relied upon and also that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of she mis-conduct. The appellate order has been challenged on the ground that it is a non speaking order without indicating any reasons for the rejection of the appeal

(3.) The respondents have submitted a written reply stating that the report of the preliminary inquiry had listed the applicant at the top of the list of 4 persons responsible for the accident. It is their contention that the applicant being the Permanent Way Inspector had acted negligently and failed in his duty of the proper maintenance of the Railway Track and ensuring its safety. It has been averred that the applicant was afforded every opportunity to defend himself In the inquiry and the report of the inquiry is fully supported by evidence recorded in the course of the inquiry. It is stated that the disciplinary authority considered ell the points raised by the applicant and thereafter imposed the penalty.