CHAIN SINGH JAAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26 -2 -2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Original Application No. 283/1998. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined services of Indian Railways in the year 1973 as Coalman and was promoted from time to time and became Train Driver Grade 'C. On 27 -2 -1997 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. As per the charge sheet, on 10 -2 -1997 while the petitioner was working as Driver of DN NKJ Oil Tank Spl. Engine No. 17369 WDM2 (ET) he failed to keep his train under control and passed DN outer Signal of GRO Station at 'ON' position and causing head on collision with the part load of DN STA Oil Tank Spl. Engine No. 16214 WDM" (ET) which was standing between DN Outer and Dn Home Signal at GRO Station while performing shunting.

(2.) THE petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which the charges were found to be proved. On the basis of enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority DME Jabalpur vide its order dated 5 -12 -1997 (Annexure P -2) imposed the punishment of 'removal from service'. In appeal the appellate authority Senior DME, Jabalpur vide its order dated 11 -2 -1998 (Annexure P -3) concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that collision was caused by a combination of factor as brought out during the enquiry. However, the Appellate Authority held that punishment imposed is rather too severe and accordingly modified it from 'removal from service' to 'compulsory retirement'. Being dissatisfied the petitioner approached to the Tribunal by filing the original application. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application of the petitioner. Hence this petition. We have heard Shri A.K. Dey, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondents and perused the record. Shri A.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the ground which was raised by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that the action of the respondents against the petitioner is very unfair and he has been discriminated amongst other railway staff involved in the same incident. It was stated that Shri N.S. Iyer, driver of STA Oil tank who undertook the shunting of his train in block section without permission of Station Master more particularly when line clearance had been given to the train in which the petitioner was driver, was inflicted with a minor penalty of withholding of increments for two years. Similarly Shri M.S. Chouhan, Station Master, GRO Station who allowed the driver of STA oil tank to undertake shunting in block section beyond the limited area and at the same time given line clear to incoming train NKJ Oil tank in which the petitioner was driver was also awarded only a minor penalty of withholding of increment for three years. It was thus submitted that the petitioner was subjected to a disproportionate punishment qua other employees who were mainly responsible for the collision/accident and the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter and dealt with this question in a slipshod manner by observing 'that there may be several persons responsible for an incident. However, the extent to which they are responsible may differ on account of their duties'. It was further submitted that considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner being shockingly disproportionate ought to have been interfered by the Tribunal.

(3.) SHRI R.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents while combating the allegations has submitted that no discrimination was committed by the respondents while awarding the punishment to the petitioner qua other employees found involved in the same incident. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that looking to the gravity of the charges found to be proved against the petitioner the punishment imposed cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. He thus supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the petition. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides we are of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got force. The Tribunal has not dealt with the point of discrimination raised by the petitioner justly and elaborately. The petitioner has categorically stated that all the three employees were charge sheeted for the same incident and found guilty, but the petitioner alone has been awarded severe punishment of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal instead of dealing with this ground in its proper perspective rejected the same in a slipshod manner. The Supreme Court in case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Jitendra Prasad Singh and another, : (2001) 10 SCC 530 has approved the view taken by the High Court holding that Since as many as three workmen on almost identical charges were found guilty of misconduct in connection with the same incident, though in separate proceedings, and one was punished with only one month's suspension, and the other was ultimately reinstated in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it would be denial of justice to the appellant if he alone is singled out for punishment by way of dismissal from service.