UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUDHANGSHU CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and the authorities of the N.F. Railway, with its headquarters at Maligaon, challenging the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 236/98. By the aforementioned judgment and order, the learned tribunal has interfered with an order dated 8.8.98 passed by the appellate authority imposing on the respondent the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on modification of the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as imposed by the disciplinary authority. The learned Tribunal after causing interference as above, further directed that an earlier order of the appellate authority dated 30.12.97 exonerating the respondent in the writ petition i.e. the applicant before the learned Tribunal, should be given effect to by the present writ petitioners.

(2.) The facts that would be necessary for this Court to appreciate the rival projections made in the writ petition may briefly be noticed at the outset. A memorandum of charges dated 14.6.93 levelling, in essence, a charge of misappropriation of railway properties was served on the respondent/applicant. Thereafter, by a corrigendum dated 20.9.94, the word 'misappropriation' appearing in the charge memo dated 14.6.93 was corrected to be read as 'mismanagement'. The respondent/applicant replied to the charges levelled and the said reply not having been found to be satisfactory, the disciplinary authority thought it appropriate to appoint an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled. The respondent/applicant participated in the enquiry and on conclusion thereof, a report of enquiry dated 24.9.97 was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding the respondent/applicant to be guilty of all the charges levelled. The report of the enquiry officer was served on the respondent/applicant and on consideration of his reply, the disciplinary authority by the order dated 20.12.97 imposed the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved, the respondent/ applicant filed an appeal under the Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 against the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty in question. The appellate authority drew up an order dated 30.12.97, in which order, on the grounds and reasons assigned, the appellate authority took the view that the charges levelled against the respondent/applicant must be held to be not proved and the respondent/applicant should be entitled to the benefit of being exonerated from the charges levelled. It must be noticed at this stage that the order of the appellate authority dated 30.12.97 was recorded in the file but the same was not communicated in any manner to the applicant/respondent as required under Rule 12 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules in force. Rather, after recording the aforesaid appellate order dated 30.12.97, the file along with the order was endorsed to the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer for the views of the Vigilance Department in the matter. Thereafter, it appears that the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer had submitted his views to the appellate authority by a communication dated 24.3.98. On receipt of the said views of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, the appellate authority in purported consideration of the views expressed drew up a second order which was signed in the file on 5.8.98 and was communicated to the respondent/applicant on 8.8.98. In the order as recorded in the file and communicated to the respondent/applicant on the dates noticed above, the appellate authority after reproducing the text of the report of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer took the view that the applicant/respondent should be held guilty of the charges levelled and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect instead of three increments with cumulative effect as imposed by the disciplinary authority should be inflicted on the applicant/respondent.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8.8.98 passed by the appellate authority, the respondent as applicant initiated a proceeding before the learned tribunal calling into question the initial order of the disciplinary authority dated 20.12.97 as well as the appellate order dated 8.8.98 imposing the punishment as noticed by us.