UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBRATA RANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated February 5, 2020 (for short, the impugned order) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, (for short, the Tribunal) in OA 350/1589 /2014 (Subrata Ranjan Das vs. Union of India & Ors.) [for short, the Original Application] whereunder the Original Application was allowed. Vide impugned order the Tribunal quashed the order dated October 30, 2014 passed by the disciplinary authority. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to proceed against the respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case as are evident from records are that on August 30, 2011 the respondent was on duty in Train No. CED/SPL, LOCO No. 27642 of call for 21:45 hours at Andul. The train arrived at Dum Dum Junction at 02:32 hours and thereafter signal was lowered at 03:07 hours to proceed further for Chittpur. The petitioner refused to proceed and was unwilling to continue to discharge his duty and demanded relief at Dum Dum Junction. For this reason, the signal was to be put back at stop position at 03:40 hours. At the time the respondent had completed only 06:25 hours of his duty.

(3.) Finally the train departed from Dum Dum Junction at 04:03 hours with a help of fresh crew as the respondent was reluctant to continue. As a result there had been detention of the train at Dum Dum Junction for 33 minutes. It was shown in Traction Rolling Stock (TRS now operation) account. As a consequence all the trains were to be rescheduled. Such an act was considered to be a gross negligence on the part of the respondent to perform his duty and violation of GR/SR 2.06 i.e. General Rules and Subsidiaries Rules. The respondent was then suspended by Office Order dated August 30, 2011. The suspension was revoked by an Order dated September 12, 2011. The respondent submitted his defense statement on September 27, 2011. In the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the railway employer, the disciplinary authority submitted its report. Punishment of stoppage of three increments as and when due, with non-cumulative effect, was imposed upon the respondent by the disciplinary authority vide order dated November 2, 2011.