V.Perumal v. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.06.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No. 18795 of 2001V.Perumal... Petitionervs1.Union of India rep. by the Senior Divisional Operation's Manager, Traffic Branch, Southern Railway, Madurai-10.2.The Divisional Railway Manager, Madurai Division, Southern Railway, Madurai-10.3.The Chief Operation's Manager, General Managers Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3. ... Respondents.Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondentin No.U/T-5/Misc./8/92 dated 12.5.1993 confirmed in O.A.No.676/98 beforeCentral Administrative Tribunal dated 13.09.2000 and quash the same anddirect the respondents to sanction the due increments, refix the pay anddisburse all arrears of salary including all consequential benefits onaccount of the impugned proceedings. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Kannan for M/s.P.T.S.NarendravasanFor Respondents: Ms.Aparna Nandakumar Standing Counsel for Railways.O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The petitioner, who is aggrieved against the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal dated 13.09.2000 passed in O.A.No.676 of 1998, hascome forward with this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner was working as Station Master of VirudhunagarJunction at the relevant point of time. On 01.04.1992, he was performingduty in the South Cabin at 20 to 24 hours at Virudhunagar Junction. Whileso, he was stated to have permitted despatch signals to be taken off forPassenger Train No. 109 to leave from road 4 without ensuring the settingand locking of points for correct route to enable the said train to enterManiyachi Junction side instead of Tenkasi Junction side. As the saidconduct of the petitioner was in violation of the Provisions of GR 338(a)and (B) of the relevant rules, he was issued with a Memorandum of Chargedated 27.08.1992. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated25.01.1993. Thereafter, an enquiry was held in which the petitionerparticipated. The petitioner asked for the Combined Train Report and therelevant Control Chart of that day in one of his letters dated 29.10.1992.The petitioner was permitted to peruse the records and he also perused thesame on 10.11.1992. The petitioner asked for some more documents. The 1strespondent/Railways took the stand that such documents were not relevantand therefore, not necessary. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority,considering the petitioner's explanation, imposed a minor penalty inexercise of his power under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Disciplineand Appeal) Rules, 1968, and thereby his annual increment was withheldfor a period of 36 months, which was otherwise due on 01.08.1993. Theorder of punishment was dated 12.05.1993. The petitioner preferred anappeal and the Appellate Authority, by his order dated 06.09.1994,confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner alsopreferred a revision to the Personnel Branch of the Headquarters atChennai, which was also disposed of on 26.02.1998 and the RevisionalAuthority also declined to interfere with the punishment. 3. The petitioner preferred O.A.No.676 of 1998 on the file of theCentral Administrative Tribunal contending that no such incident asalleged against him happened on 01.04.1992 between 20 - 24 hours andtherefore, in the absence of the relevant records disclosing the happeningof such an incident, merely based on the oral version of the authorities,the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have inflicted the punishment onthe petitioner. The petitioner's application was resisted by therespondents/railways contending that after the occurrence on 01.04.1992, aJoint Fact Finding Enquiry Committee was constituted comprising ofForeman 'B'/Diesal/Virudhunagar, Traffic Inspector/II/Madurai and SignalInspector/I/Virudhunagar by the Divisional Safety Officer/Madurai toenquire into the incident and that the Committee held an enquiry on29.05.1992, where the petitioner was enquired and his statement wasrecorded. It is also stated that except the petitioner, all others, whowere examined by the Committee, accepted the occurrence that took place on01.04.1992. The respondents/Railways further stated that based on theenquiry report of the said Committee, as the Disciplinary Authority wassatisfied about the proved misconduct committed by the petitioner, passedthe order of punishment dated 12.05.1993 and since the same has beenconfirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority,no interference was called for. Even before the Tribunal, the petitionerreiterated his contention that in the absence of the production of theCombined Train Report and the Control Chart, the misconduct allegedagainst him cannot be said to have been proved. The Tribunal, however, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rejected the contention of the petitioner and held as under in paragraphNo.7 of the order passed in O.A.No.676 of 1998:-" 7. An analysis of this statement of therespondents would go to show that responsible officerslike Foreman 'B'/Diesal/ Virudhunagar, TrafficInspector/II/Madurai and SignalInspector/I/Virudhunagar have inquired into theincident and the committee held the enquiry and alsothe applicant was present and all the personsparticipated in the enquiry and all the persons whoparticipated in the enquiry confirmed that theapplicant has not exercised proper care and caustionin giving the signalling. Therefore, when once theresponsible officer of the department has filed thereply stating the above facts, there is no reason todoubt the same. In fact it is seen from this that inaddition to the applicant the Guard also isresponsible in trying to help the applicant. Meretechnicalities should not stand in the way of thedisciplinary action taken against the delinquent bythe administration. This a serious case where theTrain has come on the wrong line and something wouldhave happened resulting in loss of life and property.There is no necessity to frame a false charge againstthe applicant by any of the officers of the Railways.The applicant has not specifically pleaded anywherethat any of the Railway officers are biased againsthim and prejudiced against him and had some maliceagainst him and therefore, he was implicated in thiscase. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion has to bearrived at on the basis whether an ordinary prudentperson would accept existence of such facts is statedto be the proof under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.Therefore, though the standard of proof accepted in adepartmental enquiry is not as that of the proofeither in the criminal or civil cases keeping in viewthe reasonable standard of proof accepted even in thedepartmental enquiry, this a case where thecircumstances are absent to come to the conclusionthat the alleged incident is fabricated, as theassertions made in the reply would clearly go to showthat this is the thing that has happened and thedepartment took the necessary action against theconcerned in public interest." 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe Standing Counsel for the respondents/Railways. 5. Mr.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended beforeus that the the respondents/Railways deliberately failed to produce theCombined Train Report and the Control Chart as that would have otherwiserevealed that no incident as alleged against the petitioner had taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ place on that day. The learned counsel further contended that in theabsence of any acceptable material evidence, merely on the basis of theoral version of the contesting respondents, the petitioner ought not tohave been punished.6. On the other hand, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, learned Standing Counselfor the contesting respondents, contended that the petitioner was holdinga very vulnerable post, that onerous responsibility was reposed on thepetitioner to ensure that trains which enter and leave VirudhunagarJunction move in the proper track and that any violation in the dischargeof such onerous responsibility will result in far-reaching consequencesincluding heavy loss of life and therefore, the misconduct alleged againstthe petitioner and as found proved by the Disciplinary Authority based onwhich the punishment imposed was rightly not interfered with by theTribunal. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, contended that whennone of the authorities had any grudge against the petitioner and whenthere were enough oral evidence of the other persons, who were on duty onthat day, who confirmed the incident, there was no reason to disbelievetheir version and therefore, the order of the Tribunal should not beinterfered with.7. We find force in the contention of the learned Standing Counselfor the contesting respondents. This is not a case of no evidence.According to the petitioner, there is lack of enough material to find thepetitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. In disciplinarymatters, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that there need notnecessarily be overwhelming evidence in proof of the misconduct and whatis required is some evidence that would link the delinquent to theprobable extent of misconduct alleged against him. In this context, itwill be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Honourable SupremeCourt reported in STATE OF HARYANA -vs- RATTAN SINGH (1982 (1) L.L.J. Page46:- which reads as under:-"It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry thestrict and sophisticated rules of evidence under theIndian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials whichare logically probative for a prudent mind arepermissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidenceprovided it has reasonable nexus and creditability. Itis true that departmental authorities andadministrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluatingsuch material and should not glibly swallow what isstrictly speaking not relevant under the IndianEvidence Act. For this proposition, it is notnecessary to cite decisions nor text books, although wehave been taken through case law and other authoritiesby counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicialapproach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneousmaterials or considerations and observance of rules ofnatural justice. Of course, fair play is basis and ifperversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender ofindependence of judgment vitiate the conclusionreached, such finding, even though of a domesticTribunal, cannot be held good. The simple point is, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was there some evidence or was there no evidence – notin the sense of the technical rules governing regularcourt proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as menof understanding and worldly wisdom will accept.Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof ofthe finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny.8. When we apply the above principle to the case on hand, it is seenthat immediately after the occurrence on 01.04.1992, a Special Committeewas constituted, which enquired into the incident on 29.05.1992. The saidCommittee recorded the statements of all those persons including thepetitioner herein, who were on duty on 01.04.1992. The Committee hassubmitted a report stating that except the petitioner, all other personsadmitted the occurrence that took place on 01.04.1992. It is not indispute that as Cabin Station Master, it is the overall responsibility ofthe petitioner to ensure, before permitting any train to take off from thestation, that such train enters the correct track. Therefore, when thepetitioner was in the ultimate control of the station on that day, it isquite probable that the petitioner himself managed not to enter theincident in any of the records with the aid of others working under him.But as rightly held by the Tribunal, when none of the Committee Members,who enquired into the incident or the other personnel who admitted theoccurrence, had any axe to grind against the petitioner, merely becausethe petitioner alone took the stand that no such occurrence took place onthat day, the proceedings against the petitioner should be set at naught,when the alleged act of the petitioner, which was otherwise found proved,being a grave one, as contended by the Standing Counsel for the contestingrespondents, there would have been every scope for any seriousmishappening taking place. It was to every ones furtune that no suchuntoward incident or any accident had taken place on that day. Therefore,as held by the Tribunal, even in public interest, it is just and properthat the action of the respondents/Railways in having proceeded againstthe petitioner and the infliction of the punishment based on the enquiryreport of the Committee is not interfered with. In our opinion, thepetitioner, being the Station Master, who was under overall control ofVirudhunagar Junction on that day ought to have owned moralresponsibility, instead of attempting to wriggle out of the act allegedagainst him. Such an attitude adopted by the petitioner can never besupported or countenanced. We are, therefore, convinced that the order ofpunishment dated 12.05.1993, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority andthe Revisional Authority as well as by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, does not call for interference. In any event, we find thatthough the act alleged against the petitioner and found proved was quiteserious, yet the respondents/Railways were lenient in the imposition ofpunishment by merely withholding the increment, which is a minorpunishment. In fact, such conducts have been found to be very seriousmisconduct and this Court has held, in the decision reported in ROYALPRINTING WORKS -vs- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS AND ANOTHER (1959 IIL.L.J. Page 619), that interference with punishment in such cases willamount to misplaced sympathy. The penultimate paragraph of the judgmentis relevant for our purpose, which reads as under:-"There are certain passages in the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal which as I understand them suggest thatcarelessness on the part of an employee in relation tohis work would not justify serious punishment. Withthis view, I definitely disagree. Carelessness canoften be productive of more harm than deliberatewickedness or malevolence. I shall not refer to theclassic example of the sentry who sleeps at his postand allows the enemy to slip through. There are othermore familiar instances. A compositor who carelesslyplaces a plus sign instead of a minus sign in aquestion paper may cause numerous examinees to fail.A compounder in a hospital or chemist's shop who makesup the mixtures or other medicines carelessly maycause quite a few deaths. The man at an airport whodoes not carefully filter the petrol poured into aplane may cause it to crash. The railway employee whodoes not set the point carefully may cause a head-oncollision. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil.Carelessness and indifference to duty are not the highroads to individual or national prosperity."The said judgment was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Courtin the decision reported in ROYAL PRINTING WORKS -vs- INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL, MADRAS AND OTHERS (1963 (2) L.L.J. Page 60). 9. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find any meritin this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Nocosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar bs/To1.Union of India rep. by the Senior Divisional Operation's Manager, Traffic Branch, Southern Railway, Madurai-10.2.The Divisional Railway Manager, Madurai Division, Southern Railway, Madurai-10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Chief Operation's Manager, General Managers Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3.1 cc To Mrs.Aparna Nadakumar, Advocate, SR.36912.W.P.No.18795 of 2001 SKV(CO)RVL 04.07.2007