Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Kashish Gupta, Adv v. MAHENDER SINGH

Judgment

1. On 6 June 2005, the respondent Mahender Singh was issued a charge sheet, proposing initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The proceedings ultimately resulted in imposition, on the respondent, of the penalty of “reduction in the same pay band by one

step with cumulative effect”. The punishment was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24 October 2010. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 2115/2011. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 22 February 2013, set aside the punishment order as well as the appellate order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to pass a speaking order. The Appellate Authority once again rejected the respondent’s appeal vide Signature Not Verified 1 “Tribunal” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.01.2025 20:37:38 WP(C) 3755/2023 order dated 3 July 2013. A Revision Petition, preferred thereagainst, was rejected by the Revisionary Authority on 25 October 2013. The respondent once again approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1893/2014 in which the Tribunal, once again, vide order dated 23 August 2018, quashed and set aside the order of punishment, the appellate order and the revisionary order and directed the petitioners to proceed de novo from the stage of issuance of the charge sheet and appoint an appropriate Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings took off once again, resulting in an order dated 12 July 2022, passed by the Disciplinary Authority2, whereby the respondent was imposed a penalty of withholding of 100% monthly pension on a permanent basis.

2. Assailing this order, the respondent approached the Tribunal a third time, by way of OA 2339/2022.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent raised only two grounds. The first was that the punishment order dated 12 July 2022 expressly stated, in paras 6 and 7, that it was based on advice received from the Union Public Service Commission3, which had never been provided to the respondent, and the second ground urged by the respondent was that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge against him. The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in Krishna Singh v UOI4 – which, in turn, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v S.K. Kapur5, held that, as the advice of the UPSC had not been provided to the respondent before the punishment order was passed against him, the order stood vitiated. 2 “DA” hereinafter 3 “UPSC” hereinafter 4 Judgement dated 16 January 2020 in OA 42/2015 5 (2011) 4 SCC 589 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.01.2025 20:37:38 WP(C) 3755/2023

4. Noting the fact that the respondent had been provided a copy of the UPSC advice only after the OA had been filed by him, the Tribunal has set aside the punishment order, appellate order and revisionary order passed against the respondent and has directed restoration of his pension. Additionally, the respondent has been granted liberty to prefer a comprehensive representation to the petitioners, keeping in view all relevant facts including the advice of the UPSC and the petitioners have been directed to consider the said representation and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon as expeditiously as possible.

5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Railway Authorities have approached this Cout by means of the present writ petition.

6. We have heard Ms. Lakra for the petitioner and Manjeet Singh Reen for the respondent.

7. Mr. Reen points out that the issue in controversy is covered by a recent judgment rendered by this Court in Ministry of Railways v Shri Mohan Singh Sandhu6, on the aspect of the requirement of furnishing of a copy of the UPSC advice to the charged officer, before the advice was acted upon to his detriment. In the said decision, this Court has observed as under: “7. Certain decisions hold that the advice is required to be furnished, whereas others take a contrary view. The matter has, therefore, been referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench by order dated 4 July 2017 in UOI v Anup Kumar Sinha7. Though, of the decisions referred to in the order of 8. reference, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v T.V. Patel8 held that the copy of the UPSC advice need not be given to 6 WP(C) 8929/2024 decided on 27 September 2024 7 SLP (C) 17430/2017 8 (2007) 4 SCC 785 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.01.2025 20:37:38 WP(C) 3755/2023 the charged officer, and the latter decision in UOI v R.P. Singh9 held to the contrary, learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that, even before these decisions, the Supreme Court had held, in S.N. Narula v UOI10, that the UPSC report had necessarily to be provided to the delinquent employee. The decision in S N Narula is brief and may be reproduced, in extenso, thus: “1. Leave granted. The appellant was initially appointed as Station Master in the Northern Railways in 1955 and during the relevant time when he was Senior Commercial Manager a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and the enquiry officer filed report holding that Charge 5 was partly proved and Charge 7 proved. As regards other charges he was exonerated. After considering the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority proposed a punishment suggesting a suitable cut in the pension and the appellant was not heard on this proposal. Thereafter, the proceedings were sent for 2. opinion of the Union Public Service Commission and the Union Public Service Commission gave an opinion to the effect that the appellant’s pension shall be reduced to the minimum and he shall not be granted any gratuity. The disciplinary authority accepted the proposal of the Union Public Service Commission and imposed the said punishment.

3. It is to be noticed that the advisory opinion of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before he was heard by the disciplinary authority. The same was communicated to the appellant along with final order passed in the matter by the disciplinary authority.

4. The appellant filed OA No. 1154 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and the Tribunal held that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and the following direction was issued: “We are of the considered opinion that this order is a non-speaking one and as such we are of the view that the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned Signature Not Verified