MK JANGID Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD at the admission stage itself.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 2.8.2011, whereby his OA was dismissed.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order, we do not find any ground for interference because the learned tribunal has appreciated the rules of inquiry in cases of minor and major penalties and procedure laid down. The allegation of annoyance of the Chief Signal Inspector is also not tenable because the inspection was made not only by one person but by joint inspection team. Rules 9 & 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968, were not applicable in this case because it was a case of minor penalty, as is clear from the charge-sheet Annexure A3 dated 16.11.2009. Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 provides that where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied with the facts on record, it is not necessary to hold inquiry before imposing minor penalty and it could be imposed on the basis of the facts on record. Joint surprise inspection was conducted by the CSI/CMI and the contention of petitioner about passing of train no.2966 at 0030 hours from that station, was also found incorrect because as per record train no.2966 had crossed the station at 0145 hours.