SACHIDANAND SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by applicant, Shri Sachidanand Singh, against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and six others.

(2.) The applicant was appointed as a Ticket Collector on 8.6.1959 against sports quota of the Eastern Railway by the Order passed by the General Manager, Eastern Railway. Afterwards he was promoted to the post of Enquiry -cum -Reservation Clerk and posted at Howrah. By an Order issued on 31.12.1982 a major penalty chargesheet was issued against him on the allegation that on 12.2.1982 while working as the Assistant Reservation Supervisor, Howrah he blocked six Second Class Three Tier Berths in 5 UP Howrah Amritsar Mail by quoting fictitious names of reservists against fictitious pass particulars and that on 11.4.1982 he allotted four berths to one Shri Vashava in the same train by quoting fictitious names and fictitious pass particulars without cancellation of the earlier allotments and making overwriting in the original entries. On receiving the charge -sheet the applicant prayed for inspection of the documents mentioned in the Annexures. But inspection of items 1 to 4 was granted and that of item No. 5 was not granted. The applicant again prayed for inspection of the "final chart" as mentioned in item No. 5 of the Annexure. Inspection of that item was not given to him on the ground that it was not available. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry against him. The applicant again made a prayer for inspection of the document as prayed by him earlier to submit his Show Cause. However, the applicant haled a Show Clause to the allegations levelled against him. The applicant states that ultimately by an Order issued by his Disciplinary Authority item 5 of the Annexure to the charge -sheet was substituted by another document. On the first day when the enquiry was held the applicant made a prayer for inspection of the "Final Chart" to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, in his turn, rejected his prayer on the ground that the said document was not relevant. An enquiry was held and the applicant defended his case through his Defence Assistant. Afterwards the Enquiry Officer submitted a report with a finding of guilt against him. Accepting the report the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Howrah, respondent No. 4 imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service on him, The applicant challenges the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer as perverse and unfounded. He also challenges the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as it has been passed without application of mind and without complying with the provisions of law. He preferred an appeal which was considered by the Divisional Railway Manager (COM), Eastern Railway, Howrah and rejected. The applicant challenges the Order passed by the Appellate Authority as not in accordance with the rules. Thereafter the applicant submitted a review to the Divisional Railway Manager, Howrah which was also rejected. The applicant challenges that Order passed by the Reviewing Authority on the ground that it is not a speaking Order. According to the applicant the report submitted by the Enquirer Officer and the penalty imposed by his Disciplinary Authority accepting that report cannot be sustained as they had offended the principles of natural justice. In filing the application the applicant has prayed, for setting aside the Order of compulsory retirement passed by his Disciplinary Authority including the proceedings and findings of the departmental enquiry. The applicant has also prayed for setting aside the Orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority.

(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. In their reply the respondents have stated that as the applicant while functioning as the Assistant Reservation Superintendent, Howrah had committed acts of gross misconduct on the dates and in the way as mentioned in the imputation of misconduct a departmental enquiry was held against him. The applicant was given reasonable opportunities to defend his case. He engaged his defence assistant as per his choice. The respondents state that the "Final Chart" had no relevance with the allegations levelled against the applicant. That apart that item was substituted by another document by.an Order passed by the applicant's Disciplinary Authority. So, the applicant cannot be said to have been prejudiced by non -inspection of the said document. After holding the enquiry the Enquiry Officer passed a finding of guilt against the applicant and accepting that the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the applicant considering the gravity of the offence. The appeal and the review preferred by the applicant had been duly considered by the concerned Authorities as per rules and ejected. The respondents aver that the departmental enquiry does not suffer from any infirmity and as such the Disciplinary Authority had every reason to agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and impose a penalty on the applicant after application of its mind.