Original Application No. 1454 of 2017 · High Court · 2025

4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that though the respondent has raised several issues before the appellate and revisional authority, however, the disposal by both the authorities was cursory and the orders passed were neither detailed nor speaking orders. It was further found that nothing could be found about lack of integrity, the findings of the enquiry officer were vague and consequently, quashed the orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the orders impugned. Submissions have been made that the charge regarding shortage of items at the depot during the vigilance check was serious enough for sustaining the punishment imposed and the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty.

6. Submissions have also been made that if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the order passed by the revisional authority was not speaking/cursory, instead of quashing of the penalty order, appellate and revisional order, the matter could have been remanded to the appellate/revisional authority and therefore, the order impugned be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. Submission has been made that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for passing the order, which does not call for any interference.

8. It has been emphasized that the enquiry report was totally vague, only one line finding recording the charge having been partially proved was recorded without elaborating as to what extent and which part of the charge was proved and therefore, the order impugned does not call for interfence.

9. Submissions have also been made that the charge-sheet was given in the year 2014 and punishment was imposed in the year 2016 and as over ten years have passed, instead of remanding back the matter, the Tribunal was justified in examining the same at its level and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The article of charge in the present case reads as under : "During a Vigilance Check conducted on date 22.08.2013, it was found that in store of East Depot/JHS, there were 08 items found short/excess than entered in ledger book. No proper reason has been explained regarding this irregularity by Shri Shailendra Kumar. So malafide intention appears and it could have resulted in loss to Railway through pilferage. By his above act of omission & commission Shri Shailendra Kumar, Senior Section Engineer/East JHS has shown lack of integrity, displayed lack of devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant, contravening provision of Rule no. 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

12. The enquiry officer, after noticing documents and evidence on record, while recording his conclusion and findings, observed as under : "14.0 Conclusion and findings: Thus, after due consideration of evidence, examination, re-examination and cross examination of PW, defence witness and records adduced during the inquiry and considering the defence submitted by the CO/ARE, it is concluded that:- (i) Article of charge-I is partially proved."

13. A perusal of the above finding of the enquiry officer would reveal that there has been no discussion worth the name for arriving at the finding that the charge was partially proved. The Tribunal was justified in observing that the indication made was totally vague as to which part of the charge was proved. The allegations in the charge-sheet inter-alia pertained to showing lack of integrity and lack of devotion to duty and having acted in a manner unbecoming of railway of servant. However, the enquiry officer in the entire enquiry report, did not make any comment on the said aspects of the matter. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal without indicating any reason and the revisional authority in a totally ipse dixit manner, reduced the punishment of withholding one grade increment without future effect.

14. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, noticing above state of affairs, set aside all the orders impugned and directed restoring the original pay scale of the respondent with all consequential benefits. As would be noticed, the charge was found to be partially proved, however, the same did not contain any reason in support thereof and even the fact as to which part of the charge was found proved was not indicated. The enquiry report was, therefore, absolutely vague. However, the appeal was dismissed and the revisional authority finding substance in the plea raised, without recording reasons as to why even punishment of withholding one grade increment without future effect should be imposed, passed the order. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

15. So far as the plea raised that the matter should have been remanded back to the revisional authority/appellate authority is concerned, looking to the nature of allegations made, charges found proved and the manner the punishment has been imposed, we do not find any justification after ten years to accept the said plea of the petitioners so as to relegate back the respondent to the stage before the revisional authority.

16. Consequently, the petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that though the respondent has raised several issues before the appellate and revisional authority, however, the disposal by both the authorities was cursory and the orders passed were neither detailed nor speaking orders. It was further found that nothing could be found about lack of integrity, the findings of the enquiry officer were vague and consequently, quashed the orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the orders impugned. Submissions have been made that the charge regarding shortage of items at the depot during the vigilance check was serious enough for sustaining the punishment imposed and the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty.

6. Submissions have also been made that if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the order passed by the revisional authority was not speaking/cursory, instead of quashing of the penalty order, appellate and revisional order, the matter could have been remanded to the appellate/revisional authority and therefore, the order impugned be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. Submission has been made that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for passing the order, which does not call for any interference.

8. It has been emphasized that the enquiry report was totally vague, only one line finding recording the charge having been partially proved was recorded without elaborating as to what extent and which part of the charge was proved and therefore, the order impugned does not call for interfence.

9. Submissions have also been made that the charge-sheet was given in the year 2014 and punishment was imposed in the year 2016 and as over ten years have passed, instead of remanding back the matter, the Tribunal was justified in examining the same at its level and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The article of charge in the present case reads as under : "During a Vigilance Check conducted on date 22.08.2013, it was found that in store of East Depot/JHS, there were 08 items found short/excess than entered in ledger book. No proper reason has been explained regarding this irregularity by Shri Shailendra Kumar. So malafide intention appears and it could have resulted in loss to Railway through pilferage. By his above act of omission & commission Shri Shailendra Kumar, Senior Section Engineer/East JHS has shown lack of integrity, displayed lack of devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant, contravening provision of Rule no. 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."

12. The enquiry officer, after noticing documents and evidence on record, while recording his conclusion and findings, observed as under : "14.0 Conclusion and findings: Thus, after due consideration of evidence, examination, re-examination and cross examination of PW, defence witness and records adduced during the inquiry and considering the defence submitted by the CO/ARE, it is concluded that:- (i) Article of charge-I is partially proved."

13. A perusal of the above finding of the enquiry officer would reveal that there has been no discussion worth the name for arriving at the finding that the charge was partially proved. The Tribunal was justified in observing that the indication made was totally vague as to which part of the charge was proved. The allegations in the charge-sheet inter-alia pertained to showing lack of integrity and lack of devotion to duty and having acted in a manner unbecoming of railway of servant. However, the enquiry officer in the entire enquiry report, did not make any comment on the said aspects of the matter. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal without indicating any reason and the revisional authority in a totally ipse dixit manner, reduced the punishment of withholding one grade increment without future effect.

14. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, noticing above state of affairs, set aside all the orders impugned and directed restoring the original pay scale of the respondent with all consequential benefits. As would be noticed, the charge was found to be partially proved, however, the same did not contain any reason in support thereof and even the fact as to which part of the charge was found proved was not indicated. The enquiry report was, therefore, absolutely vague. However, the appeal was dismissed and the revisional authority finding substance in the plea raised, without recording reasons as to why even punishment of withholding one grade increment without future effect should be imposed, passed the order. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

15. So far as the plea raised that the matter should have been remanded back to the revisional authority/appellate authority is concerned, looking to the nature of allegations made, charges found proved and the manner the punishment has been imposed, we do not find any justification after ten years to accept the said plea of the petitioners so as to relegate back the respondent to the stage before the revisional authority.

16. Consequently, the petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)