DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER Vs. SANJAY RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (Circuit Bench at Jammu) (for brevity 'the Tribunal ') dated 31.05.2013 is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition filed by the Divisional Railway Manager (DM) Northern Railways and his other associate officers.

(2.) THE principal ground for granting relief to the original applicant -respondent Sanjay Raina is discernible from para 11 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It has been concluded that charge sheet was issued after a delay of 10 years. The event with regard to misuse of railway passes took place in the year 1997 and charge -sheet was issued on 25.09.2007. There was no satisfactory explanation furnished by the writ petitioners before the Tribunal as to why charge -sheet was issued after 10 years and proceedings before the Enquiry Officer remained pending for two and half years. The Tribunal quashed the order of punishment for another reason also namely that the appellate authority did not deal with all the points raised by the original applicant -respondent in his appeal and the order passed by the appellate authority was a non speaking order.

(3.) ON the contrary, Mr. P.N.Raina, learned counsel for the original applicant -respondent has stated that Sh. Sanjay Rainaoriginal applicant/ respondent has appeared as a witness in the trial against Rakesh Mahajan. He died during the pendency of trial and this fact stands admitted by the petitioners before the Tribunal. The original applicant -respondent has been visited with the punishment of reduction from the stage of Rs.19170 to the stage of Rs.18060 in pay band of Rs.9300 -34800 +Rs.4200 GP for a period of two years with further stipulation of postponing future increments from the date of order dated 09.02.2012. In the absence of any classification of misconduct on the part of the original applicant -respondent as to whether misuse of passes was founded on a negligent act or it was a deliberate act for extraneous consideration, it was not possible for the authorities to conclude that major punishment of reduction in pay scale for a period of two years with cumulative effect was a justifiable punishment nor it is possible to provide fair opportunity for the type of lapse after a period of 10 years. For the aforesaid view we take support from the judgments of Hon 'ble the Supreme court rendered in the cases of State of M.P. v. v. Bani Singh & anr., 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 and P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636. We also concur with the view taken by the Tribunal that the whole record was not made available for inspection of the original applicant -respondent.