Railway, Jaipur. vs Divisional Secretary, Western Railway Karmachari

Judgment

1. Divisional Secretary, Western Railway Karmachari Parishad, 1623/35, Railway Crossing, Naka Madar, Ajmer.

2. Labour Court And Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioners

: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Advocate with Mrs. Sarita Saini Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari Advocate with Mr. Sunil Kumar Lohia Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

08.08.2025

18.08.2025

1. Petitoner No. 1, an officer of Western Railway, has challenged award dated 17.07.2002 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, while answering the reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal, penalty order of removal dated 27.11.1992 has been set aside and further directions were issued to the competent authority to pass a fresh appropriate order by treating the penalty imposed as excessive. [2025:RJ-JP:31506] (2 of 5) [CW-7709/2002]

2. Brief facts of the case are that one charge sheet was issued to workman Milton Fransis on 04.05.1991 containing therein the charges with regard to willful absence as also other charges by referring to different minor/major penalties already imposed upon the workman. On the basis of such charge sheet, enquiry was conducted, wherein the workman was found guilty of the charges and thereafter, vide order dated 03.10.1992, the workman Milton Fransis was removed from service.

3. Feeling aggrieved, concerned employee filed appeal before the appellate authority where he remained unsuccessful and his appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.1993. Thereafter, the workman Milton Fransis raised industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was ultimately referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Tribunal. Terms of reference for adjudication were as to whether removal of the workman with effect from

03.10.1992 was proper and valid; and if not, the concerned workman was entitled for which relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while passing the award dated 17.07.2002, the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in holding the penalty order as excessive only on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority has also taken into consideration the past penalties awarded to the concerned workman while passing order on quantum of punishment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that quantum of punishment lies outside the scope of adjudication by [2025:RJ-JP:31506] (3 of 5) [CW-7709/2002] the Tribunal and by passing award dated 17.07.2002, the Tribunal has erroneously interfered in the sole discretion of the disciplinary authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Sureme Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force & Others Vs. Abrar Ali, 2017 (4) SCC 507 to buttress his submissions qua the scope of interference with the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

7. On the other side, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 would submit that the Tribunal has committed no infirmity or illegality in passing award dated 17.07.2002, which is based upon meticulous examination of the facts and proper analysis of the evidence on record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that it is not that the Tribunal has only interfered with the quantum of punishment, the correct analysis of the impugned award would make it clear that while appreciating the evidence, learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was contrary to the principles of natural justice and penalty order was suffering from consideration of irrelevant material. Appellate authority has also not applied its judicious mind in order to appreciate the grounds in appeal filed by the workman. Quantum of punishment was also one of the reason to interfere with the penalty order and the same was not the sole reason. Hence, it has been submitted that in view of limited jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, writ petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:31506] (4 of 5) [CW-7709/2002]

8. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and thoroughly examined the record.

9. Terms of reference made to the learned Tribunal are quite wide enough so as to include examination of the penalty order on merits as well as on the question of quantum.

10. It is cardinal principle of law that disciplinary proceedings should not be mechanically interfered with, until and unless there is apparent and manifest illegality in the disciplinary proceedings and penalty has been imposed while not providing proper opportunity of defence to the delinquent.

11. In the instant case, after appraisal of the evidence, categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal holding that the enquiry report includes the alleged conduct of the concerned workman subsequent to issuance of charge sheet to him; whereas no such charge was included in the charge sheet, which has resulted in denial of defence as well as violation of principles of natural justice. There is also manifest finding of the Tribunal that the relevant material on record was not considered by the disciplinary authority and rather, justification was affected by consideration of irrelevant material which could have been avoided. Order passed by the appellate authority was also examined by the Tribunal and it was found that the order passed by the appellate authority was a non-reasoned order and passed without proper application of mind.

12. Thus, it is clear that the impugned award is not solely based upon the fact that the disciplinary authority has considered earlier penalties imposed upon the workman, for the purposes of [2025:RJ-JP:31506] (5 of 5) [CW-7709/2002] examining the quantum of punishment. Merely assessing quantum of punishment on the basis of earlier penalties inflicted upon the delinquent is quite different from the aspect of not making such material as part of the charge sheet and denying opportunity of clarification with regard to such prior conduct.

13. I have also respectfully gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force & Others Vs. Abrar Ali (supra) and find that the aforesaid decision is totally distinguishable on facts and the same is, therefore, not applicable to the instant case.

14. In the light of foregoing discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed.

15. Pending application, if any, also stand dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J