DURGA PRASAD KEWAT Vs. CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-01-2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this petition. By the impugned order the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 1110 of 2009 which was directed against the order dated 08-12-2006 whereby in a revision the punishment to the petitioner was enhanced from stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect to that of reducing pay to one stage below for a period of three years with non-cumulative effect in the same time scale. Relevant facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that the petitioner, Technician (mechanical) Grade-I, Carriage and Wagon Rack Maintenance, West Central Railway, Jabalpur, was detailed on 07-05-2006 on duty between 0 hours to 8.00 A.M. That between 4-5 A.M. on 07-05-2006 on an inspection being carried out the petitioner was found sleeping in coach No. 07404 SLRWC. The said act on the part of the petitioner led to issuance of a charge-sheet/show cause notice dated 09-05-2006 under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for inflicting minor penalty. Petitioner on receiving the notice tendered his explanation on 31-05-2006 explaining thereby that at the relevant time because of abdominal gastric problem he was lying down in the coach but not sleeping.

(2.) The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the explanation tendered by the petitioner and finding that no cogent material has been brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate the explanation of ailment that the petitioner was suffering from gastric pain, found him guilty of the charges and inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non acumulative effect.

(3.) Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority taking note of the entire facts and disagreeing with quantum of punishment inflicted for dereliction of duty issued a show cause notice on 06-07-2006 as to why the punishment be not enhanced to that of stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect. Responding to said notice petitioner filed the reply denying the allegations. The appellate authority found that the petitioner has tendered a different ailment in his explanation and, therefore, disbelieved the version that he was suffering from abdominal problem; but taking into consideration the undertaking given by the petitioner that the mistake committed by him will not be repeated in future, withdrew the notice of enhancement of punishment but upheld the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority.