The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35074 of 2025 Udaya Chandra Samal ….. Petitioner Mr. Suryasnata Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others ..... Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 24.12.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.265 of 2021, as well as the orders dated 01.08.2019, 10.09.2020 and 09/16.04.2021 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Dec-2025 21:01:38 Revisional Authority respectively. The petitioner has also prayed for modification of the punishment imposed upon him and for restoration of his pay, seniority and other Page 1 of 12 consequential service benefits. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application, wherein he sought the following reliefs: “(i) To quash the order of punishment dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Ann.-A/4 series; (ii) And to quash the order dated 10.09.2020 & 09/16.04.2021 under Ann.-A/8 & A/10 passed by the Appellate & Revisionary Authority; (iii) And to direct the respondents to restore the pay and position in the seniority as a Station Superintendent.” After filing of the said Original Application, notice was issued to the opp. parties, who filed counter affidavit, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner, since his appointment has been working in different safety-related posts, like Asst. Station Master, Station Superintendent etc., which are very crucial for ensuring the safety of train operations. It is further stated that he was required to remain vigilant at all times while on duty and could leave the working spot only in case of emergency after taking all safety precautions, including informing the on-duty Section Controller and securing safety keys and block instruments. It was further stated that despite being aware that Train No.58418 was scheduled to arrive at the station where the petitioner was on duty, he left his working spot without Page 2 of 12 taking any safety precautions for maneuvering the incoming train. Such an act, according to the opposite parties, could have resulted in a train collision and loss of human lives. Further, his negligence led to loss of coaching punctuality due to detention of the said train for about 33 minutes at Pathapatnam Station. It was further stated that on 29.11.2018, a passenger train was allowed into an occupied block section already occupied by a material train due to the sheer irresponsibility of the petitioner. The said unusual incident is defined as an indicative accident under the relevant manual provisions, having serious potential hazards. The consequences thereof are provisioned with severe punishment to prevent recurrence and to ensure safety in train operations. It was further stated that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules and that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, after considering the relevant records, passed the impugned orders. Pursuant to the counter affidavit filed by the opp. parties, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit, stating, inter alia, that the incident was within the knowledge of the Station Masters of Gunupur and Nuapada, as well as other staff of Parlakhemundi Railway Station, but no one reported the incident dated 29.11.2018 to the Chief DTI. It was stated that the Chief DTI came to Gunupur on Page 3 of 12 01.12.2018 for an inquiry and also inspected Parlakhemundi Station along with SSE Radheyshyam, as reflected in the records. According to the petitioner, the Chief DTI was aware of the situation and did not insist upon any diary entry, as there was no hazard. It was further stated that after conducting a regular hearing, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report appreciating the conduct, character and sincerity of the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer also appreciated the initiative taken by the petitioner to rectify the mistake committed by the Train Pilot and submitted the report without any specific finding that the article of charge stood proved. It was contended that the allegations relating to non-recording of the incident in the diary and failure to inform the Chief DTI were not part of the articles of charge and, therefore, could not form the basis for imposition of punishment. It was further stated that all authorities relied upon Rules GR 2.08 and 6.07(1) without quoting the provisions or making any detailed analysis regarding their applicability to the articles of charge. The petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge issued under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968 (for short, “1968 Rules”). For convenience of ready reference, the memorandum of charge sheet is culled out hereunder: Page 4 of 12 After receipt of the charge memorandum, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 16.04.2019 denying the allegations. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and based thereon, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 01.08.2019 imposed the punishment of reduction from the post of SS in Level 7 of 7th CPC with Pay Rs.60,400/- to that of SM in Level 6 of 7th CPC with Rs.35,400/- for a period of five years on expiry of the punishment period, which will have the effect on postponing the future increments of his pay and also lose Page 5 of 12 his seniority to meet the ends of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the opp. parties and upon perusal of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal recorded the following findings: “10. The charges against the applicant was for leaving the station without permission by the SCR and thereby not maintaining devotion of duty and acting in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant in contravention of Rule No.3 (1) (ii) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Every railway employees are bound by the terms of his employment to obey the general and departmental rules. As per GR 2.08 (1) “No railway servant shall, without the permission of his superior, absent himself from duty or alter his appointed hours of attendance or exchange duty with any other railway servant or leave his charge of duty unless properly relieved.” It is admitted fact that the applicant left the station without intimating or permission from his superior. He is working in a sensitive post where he is responsible for life and security of not just national property but also human beings. Therefore he ought to have been extra vigilant and careful while discharging his duties. GR 6.07 stipulates “Report of conditions likely to affect running of trains to Controller or Page 6 of 12 Centralised Traffic Control Operator [1] Loco Pilots, Guards and Station Masters shall advise the Controller or the Centralised Traffic Control Operator of any known conditions or unusual circumstances likely to affect the safe and proper working of trains.” As a station superintendent it was the duty of the applicant to intimate this to
Legal Reasoning
his superiors at the first instance. His stand that superior officers after visiting the station did not ask him to write it in the station diary is not tenable and he should have followed the rules to the hilt. 11. Violations of GR are misconduct of conduct rules and shows lack of devotion to duty for which the charge memo was issued to the applicant. Violation of conduct rules are justifiable ground for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. The IO, Disciplinary Authority just clarified the rules which the applicant which amount to misconduct and hence imposed the punishment. In every case giving rise to tortious liability, tort consists of injury and damage due to omissions/commissions. Duty is an obligation recognized by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. Not following the rules while performing duties and omissions involve an unreasonable risk of harm Page 7 of 12 to others. Not following the rules as provided would mean careless conduct in commission or omission of an act connoting duty, breach and the damage caused/to be caused to others. Duty of care is, therefore, crucial to understand the nature and scope of the tort of negligence. Negligence in discharge of duty where consequences are irreparable or resultant damage is heavy, which is the exact case in hand as discussed above. Act of the applicant exhibits lack of devotion and negligence in the performance of duty and, thus, applicant has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of authorities; violating the GR and in contravention of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 referred to above. Considering the gravity of the entire incident, which could have led to loss of numerous life and property, this Tribunal do not find the punishment shocking or disproportionate to the misconduct warranting interference”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and required modification. However, upon consideration of the pleadings, charges and the inquiry report, it is evident that the Page 8 of 12 petitioner was holding a very sensitive post involving safety of human life and public property. Rule GR 2.08(1) clearly mandates that no railway servant shall, without the permission of his superior, absent himself from duty or alter his appointed hours of attendance or exchange duty with any other railway servant or leave his charge of duty unless properly relieved. The petitioner’s unauthorized absence without intimation to superior authorities amounted to contravention of the said Rule and the negligence in the duties would have resulted heavy damage and the conduct of the petitioner exhibited lack of devotion and negligence in the performance of duty. Had the petitioner suddenly fallen ill, he ought to have informed the higher authority so that alternative arrangements could have been made and someone else could have been assigned the duties of the petitioner, which admittedly not done in the case in hand.
Decision
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority were justified in holding that the petitioner has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Railways, in violation of the 1966 Rules, which indicates that every railway employees are bound by the terms of his employment to obey the general and departmental rules and they should maintain devotion to the duties and should act in a manner befitting the discipline required under the 1966 Rules. Page 9 of 12 Judicial review of the punishment is to see that the sentence suits the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. If the decision of the Court even as to the sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from conclusion. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review. A Court cannot, while exercising power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considered the punishment to be disproportionate. In extreme cases, when on their face, so perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and merely on compassionate grounds, the Courts should not interfere. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi -Vrs.- Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749, it was observed as follows: “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power Page 10 of 12 of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof”. Thus, unless, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten the litigations, it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shocking disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and the nature of misconduct proved and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not appropriate or shockingly disproportionate. Thus, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercising juridical Page 11 of 12 review. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S. S. Mishra) Judge 24th December, 2025 Sipun Page 12 of 12