MUSTAK AHMED KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FILTERING out the unnecessary details, the indubitable material facts, as deduced from the pleadings of the parties are that the applicant who is working as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk Grade I at Jaipur Town Railway Reservation Centre Dist. Jaipur has filed this Original Application challenging the Memorandum dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure -A/3) issued to him under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 containing three Article of Charges with an opportunity to submit his reply within a stipulated time specified therein. The applicant denied all the allegations. Thereafter the matter was enquired into. The IO submitted its report copy of which was supplied to the applicant and the applicant filed his reply to the said report. After considering the reply submitted by the applicant vis -a -vis report of the IO etc. vide order dated 28.11.2009 (Annexure -A/11), the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment reducing his existing pay by two stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect with further direction that the punishment shall postpone his future increments on restoration. The appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected and the same was intimated to the applicant in letter dated 31.8.2010. The said order of punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority has been sought to be quashed by the applicant in this OA being illegal, arbitrary, unreasoned and actuated with malice. Respondents contested the matter by stating that on receipt of the reply from the applicant to the charge memo, the same was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and after such consideration the Disciplinary Authority appointed IO to enquire into the allegations leveled against the applicant. During enquiry, the applicant was allowed all reasonable opportunity which he had also availed of. After the closure of the enquiry, the IO submits its report holding the charges as proved. Copy of the report of the IO was supplied to the applicant. Applicant submitted his reply. Considering all aspects of the matter and with due application of mind the DA imposed the punishment. Applicant preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority after considering all aspects of the matter and the points raised by the applicant rejected the appeal in a reasoned order. In view of the above, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing, at the outset, Mr. R.B. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant drew our attention to the appeal preferred by the applicant vis -a -vis the order passed by the Appellate Authority to state that the Appellate Authority has rejected his appeal without taking into consideration the points raised by the applicant in his appeal and stated with emphasis that had the Appellate Authority taken into consideration the points raised by the applicant in his appeal, he would not have rejected the appeal by upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority as the order of the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable being contrary to the facts, rules and various Judge made laws. Therefore, clarification was sought from Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned panel Counsel appearing for the Railway -respondents on the above aspects. Mr. Ojha submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be unreasoned. As the charges leveled was held by the IO to have been proved, after allowing all reasonable opportunity to the applicant and the order of Disciplinary Authority is well reasoned as the Appellate Authority did not specifically answer in his order to the points raised by the applicant cannot make the order as nullity.

(3.) IN the case of Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, : 2006 (3) SLJ 211 (SC) : 2006 SCC (L & S) 840, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: