High Court · 2025

,n,on of lndia, rep,by.the Generar Manager, south centrar Railway, Rail , [*:;Uit""l*Si'''1llf *"tn'ricar, Eneineer (c and w)' South centrar (Power)' South centrar Rairwav' 1 fnl-gt8':*l'l'^'"'*Xt'?'e'iJ'"';"' - Cr"ntur"r DivislorlS:l}3}il v""r,rni"ut Ensineer (Power)' South Central * Hi-i:'3Lx?:n5'ili,ii#;, dunta*at ...REspoNDENrs Petition under Article 226 of the--Co":lit{l:l of lndia praying that in the circumstances stat"d in"ti"'-ritiiu"it fiteo ffrerewitti, itre Hign court may. be *''t' "'0"i"'t':::t'3hlli,l'J i[: :..[?T:U; pleased to issue un 'oo..ffi# rl y|ul ;"sx'fi: ?{.;iili? i:: Xl,::l{"ifi"r;id; i;";;me arong with 'o;'0il0.1 o ;"-ittegat' aroitrary and viorative of Article 14 Lr.No.G/T.22,GTL dated arisi-ng out.oii*ptop"' appreciation of the and 16 of the Constitutio;;iiJ; "^d facts and circumstances lf th" """ in the interest of iustice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' A' PAVAN Kyy-|R REP SRI A' RAGHU KUMAR ;;;;;i ror the Responae nis : snr " tk t1iliFi[;5ft % *^* oePuw.soltclroR GENERAL oF INDIA The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE H.1.,1''O'E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAIT SHAVILI THE I{ON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\.I EADA aNo Peti AND .8388 of 2o2L t ORDER: ().. t , Lron,bte Sri Justtce Abhiaand Kumar Shauiti) i , I ? i I,j Aggri,:r : ri by the order dated 13.11.2O21), p,assed in O.A.No. I l4!) ,,f 2015 by the Central Administr.atir,.r: .lr.ibunal, Hyderabac I_: , nch, Hyderabad (for short, .the present \t[,'r i ),:tition is filed. Tri[,u:ral,), the

2. Hearc i.iri A. pavan Kumar, learner.i representing t r. A. Raghu Kumar, learned cour,_se i appearing for the pr:titior i,r and Sri G.R.S. Akhileswar, learne l i)oLlnsel representin5; l_ : lruty Solicitor General of India rlpi)(:ar ing for coun sel the responclt:nl.

3. Learne,l :)unsel appearing for the pej,itio 1ei- had contended ttzrt rhe petitioner was working as Assis;trnI Loco Pilot and c,n [ 7 ] O.2OlI, he assisted the Loco pilot ;n pilotrng the train li.orr .l unta_kal to Chitrapur. After u,orkin 1 tor 20 hours and u1ror -eaching the Chitrapur RailwaS. St;erio r, the petitioner waS I oI given a bed to take rest and therr:fore, l-re er' the r t:ad Quarters, Guntakal' .,Hou'r,r returned to 2 AKS,J & ETD'J w? 8388-2021 1' respondents keated that the petitioner's departure from station without Prior notice as misconduct and initiated him. After conducting a disciplinary proceedings against detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed a -t ^-."'l in.rernent for a period punishment of withholding of annual incremt of two years wde proceedings' dated 04'06'2014' Later' the petitioner has preferred an appeai to the appellate authority and the appellate authority was pleased to partly allow the appeal uideproceedings' dated 07 09'2015 and modihed the punishment of \rithholding of annual increment for a period of two years' to \rithholding of annual increment for a period of 18 months with effect from 04'06'2014' without havrng any adverse effect on future pay and seniority'' Aggrieved by the modified punishment order by the appellate authority' has approached the Tribunal by {iling the Petitioner pleased to 2O15 and the Tribunal o.i..,No.rt+g of di"miss the O'A' uide order' dated 13'11'2O2O' without appreciating any of the contentions raised' by the petitioner' Therefore, aPproprlate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order' dated 13'11'2020 passed in hment order, dated O.A.No.1 149 of 2O15; the modified punis t i I I I 3 4IiS .I & ETD..] \.p 8388 2021

07.O9.ito ) : disciplrn t -r plrnishrrLc r I Passed by the appellate authoritr ard also the order, dated 04.06.2lO74 1rass.ect b), the :ruthority and further direct the r:s;pondents to releasr: t -r, increments, which were u,ithhr:lc b-v the respon de n t I is a measure of punishment. 4. On }rr ,rther hand, Iearned Depufy Solicitor. ( ieneral of India l.rzr<j r.c.,[ended that the punishment of .,with]rolding annual ll r(.: .roent for a period of 2 years,, .vL ich u.as subsequer tlr rnodified by the appellate authorill, to 1]1q1 o1 "r.l,ithhoirlirrll :,. annual increment for lg montlrs,, s not a maJor perrit.1. On completion of 1g months, tlrr. r,,ithheld increment s;lrr L Llcl be released to the petitioner. The .t:lore, Tribunal Frir:; - ghfly dismissed the O.A. as aclmitterll,r,, the disciplinarr. l I thority has imposed a punishme n I [_or the proven miscct.t. rrct in the enquiry. Hence, the .rrbur justified in crisr issing the O.A. Therefore, there arr no merits in the Writ Felr trn and the same is liable to be disrnissrecl. 5. This C I .r r, by both thr: having considered the submission s rnade 1S of the view that the TritrtLn: Ll l-ias rightly dism s s . :. the O.A., as the charge wa s h e [d to be proved in ttrr. : r-rquiry and the disciplinary ;uttLcr-iry has ri '[te S, al q.as \ AKS,J & ETD,J \w_a3aa-2o2 t imposed a punishment for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, moreover, the punishment is not a major punishment. On completion of 18 months' the withheld increment should be released to the petitioner' We are not abletounderstandastohowthepetitionerisaggrievedby the punishment though the same was imposed without cumulative effect' Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal'

6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition ts dismissed. No order as to costs' 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any' shall stand closed. SD/. P. 33i#I'.f HE3ll1H"^A ,TTRUE COPYI' To,

1. One CC to SRI A. RAGHU KUMAR, 2. One CC to SRl. GADIP INDIA toPucl 3. Two CD Copies RAVE Advoca EN KU MAR DY o BM GJP CH{L SECTION OFFICER ['u"?o* .ENERAL oF HtGH COtjrti:T DATED:1 1t}?.t2}2s ; , I I i ORDER WP.No.83BB c,f 2021 \ a. /a-' 1i) cJ3 2E i;i T 4 7t (l 11 '( 2 a \: /),- . . /,, ,- r..\ \:-.------' DISMISSING 'TI{E WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS o ckl 2tlo{ lz9