District Jhunjhunu v. Union of India through General Manager, North Western

Judgment

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura Jaipur.

2. Chief Personnel Officer, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura Jaipur.

3. Senior Divisional Engineer (Cord.), DRM Office PH Road, Jaipur.

4. Assistant Divisional Engineer, NWR, Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Anupam Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar with Mr. Digvijay Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/07/2025

1. Laying challenge to order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, as well as being dissatisfied by the order dated 24.09.2024 for dismissing O.A. No.848/2016, the petitioner has filed this instant writ petition.

2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the instant matter are that while the petitioner was holding the post of ‘Gatekeeper’, he was served with a memorandum/charge-sheet under Rule 9 of the Railway [2025:RJ-JP:28151-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-8737/2025] Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, “the Rules of 1968”). Pursuant to aforesaid charge-sheet inquiry was conducted and vide inquiry report dated 20.06.2009, the Inquiry Officer held him guilty of charges levelled against him vide charge- sheet dated 06.12.2008. The petitioner was granted opportunity to make a representation against the findings in inquiry report and by availing such opportunity, he also filed representation on

05.11.2009. After considering the nature of charge, report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation filed by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed penalty order dated 09.03.2010, whereby penalty of re-fixation of his pay in the lower scale of Rs.5200-20200 (RP) in Band Pay 5200+Grade Pay 1800/- with future effect was imposed upon the petitioner.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty order dated

09.03.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Senior Divisional Engineer (North) NWR, Jaipur. Vide order dated

09.06.2011, the Appellate Authority dismissed the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred one revision petition against the penalty order and appellate order before the Sr. D.En. (Co) on 05.07.2011. However, he could not succeed even in revision petition and same was dismissed on 30.03.2012.

5. It appears that after dismissal of revision, instead of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, the petitioner continued to make representations against the order of Revisional Authority. Vide letter dated 04.12.2012, he was apprised by Sr. D.En. (Co) that no further reconsideration can be [2025:RJ-JP:28151-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-8737/2025] made after dismissing the revision petition. Despite, such clear cut indication by the Competent Authority, the petitioner did not stop there and kept on making representations.

6. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on one of such representation, the General Manager (Personnel), North Western Railway observed vide letter dated 05.09.2013 that the penalty imposed upon the Revisional Authority was not in accordance with the Rules of 1968, therefore, Revisional Authority was required to reconsider the same.

7. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority reconsidered the penalty in the light of directions given by the General Manager and vide letter/order dated 29.05.2015, the earlier penalty was modified to the extent that there would be re-fixation of pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 (RP) in Band Pay 5200+GP 1800/- with future effect only for a period of ten years.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the order dater 29.05.2015, the petitioner preferred O.A. No.848/2016 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur with following prayers: "(a) To quash the impugned punishment order. (b) To direct the respondents to restrain from taking any vindictive action against the Applicant. (c) To direct the respondents to restore all his service benefits for the period he remained under undue punishment. (d) To direct the respondents to pay the cost of legal expenses for dragging the Applicant into avoidable litigations. (e) To grant any other relief or further order(s), as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case." [2025:RJ-JP:28151-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-8737/2025]

9. However, the aforesaid O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2024. Therefore, he again filed one Review Application No.291/18/2024 for seeking review of order dated 24.09.2024 but Tribunal has also dismissed his review petition vide order dated 11.02.2025.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to assail the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. as well as in review application would submit that Tribunal has utterly failed to appreciate that the Revisional Authority has no power to modify the earlier penalty order dated 09.03.2010 further approved in appeal on 09.06.2011 as well as in revision on 30.03.2012.

11. We find that the Revisional Authority has not suo motu exercised power of reconsideration and it was only after directions given by the General Manager (Personnel) vide letter dated

05.09.2013, the Revisional Authority modified the earlier penalty order.

12. We have also examined the order dated 29.05.2015, which has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner also, of being beneficial to the petitioner, for the reason that earlier penalty of reduction of pay vide order dated 09.03.2010 was imposed upon the petitioner for the entire service tenure, whereas vide letter/order dated 29.05.2015, rigour of the penalty has been reduced only for a period of ten years.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner has never challenged the letter dated 05.09.2013 issued by the General Manager (Personnel) directing the Revisional Authority to reconsider the penalty in accordance with the Rules. [2025:RJ-JP:28151-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-8737/2025]

14. Bare perusal of the prayers made in O.A. No.848/2016, as quoted hereinabove, would also make it clear that the petitioner has never challenged order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Revisional Authority on reconsideration.

15. Instead of challenging the order dated 29.05.2015, by way of filing O.A., the petitioner sought to challenge the original punishment order which was already confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.06.2011 and thereafter by Revisional Authority vide order dated 30.03.2012.

16. Such appellate order or revisional order or even the order passed by the Revisional Authority on reconsideration on

29.05.2015 were never challenged by the petitioner.

17. Hence, in view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any substance and merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DAKSH/69