ABHISHEK ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2017 passed in OA No. 050/00497/16 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the original application preferred by the petitioner holding that the punishment meted out to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding to be neither perverse nor disproportionate.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that while the petitioner was working as a Senior Ticket Examiner, East Central Railway and was posted at Rajendra Nagar, Patna, he was proceeded against departmentally and a charge sheet dated 04.09.2012 was served on him under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1968').

(3.) The charge against the petitioner was based on the report of the C.I.T/R.J.P.B, being of misbehavior during inspection by the Divisional Railway Manager. It was mentioned in the report that even after counselling, the petitioner misbehaved and interfered in the work. Based on the report, a proceeding under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 was initiated against the petitioner and a major penalty charge sheet (Annexure-A/1) dated 04.09.2012 was issued. Along with the charge sheet the statement of article of charges framed against the petitioner, statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of article of charge, list of document by which the article of charge framed against the petitioner was proposed to be sustained and list of witnesses by whom the article of charge framed against the petitioner was proposed to be sustained were enclosed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. After concluding the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure A/5) which was communicated to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner received an order of punishment dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure A/6) whereby and where under the punishment of reduction of the petitioner's pay by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur against the order of punishment, however, the same was rejected by order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure A/8).