Judgment : (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy for the Petitioner and Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. Rule. By Consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The above Petition filed by the Petitioner inter alia seeking for a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, or order setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's Judgment and order dated 2.11.1999. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Mechanic (Electrical) by the Respondents and after completing his training period, he was absorbed as an Electric Chargeman and promoted to Senior Electric Foreman. The Petitioner was working in Baroda-Godhra and Godhra Anand Electrification work undertaken by the Respondents and in August, 1981 to April 1983 casual labours were engaged for carrying out the work for the said project. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that on 14.7.1981/27.2.1981 respondents issued a letter not to engage casual labours without prior permission. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the said letter was not brought to his notice and on19.9.1991 the Respondents issued a Charge Sheet to the Petitioner for violating the Service Conduct Rules 1966 for engaging casual labours having Casual Labour Service Cards dated after 1.1.1981. The Petitioner thereafter requested the Respondents on 24.9.1991 to furnish some relevant records and thereafter a reminder to that effect was sent on subsequent occasions. The Petitioner filed his Written Statement disputing the allegation and the Respondents on 16.12.1992 imposed penalty of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. An Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner on 25.1.1993 against the penalty imposed on the Petitioner. The said Appeal came to be rejected and thereafter on 23.9.1994 the Petitioners filed Original Application bearing No.372 of 1994 in the Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be rejected on 2.11.1999. The said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is being challenged by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out that the Respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner and have imposed a penalty on the Petitioner without being given any opportunity of being heard. The said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is being challenged by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out that the Respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner and have imposed a penalty on the Petitioner without being given any opportunity of being heard. The learned Counsel further points out that though the Petitioner had sought for copies of the relevant documents all such documents were not supplied to the Petitioner which itself has vitiated the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the alleged breach was committed by the Petitioner in 1982-83 whereas the purported charge sheet was issued only in 1991 and on the ground of delay and latches, the proceedings against the Petitioner stand vitiated. The learned Counsel further points out that such delay has prevented the Petitioner from making an effective defence and as such the action of the Respondents deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Central Administrative Tribunal has misconstrued the relevant provisions of law and failed to consider that the failure of submitting such documents has resulted in breach of principles of natural justice to the Petitioner. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to defend himself and as such the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal has to be set aside. The learned Counsel has taken us through the impugned Judgment and orders passed by the Tribunal and has pointed out that the learned Tribunal has totally misdirected itself while passing the impugned Order. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1961 (SC) 1623 in the case of (STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS CHINTAMAN SADASHIVA WAISHAMPAYAN) and 1991 (16) ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CASES 514 in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS BANI SINGH AND ANOTHER. The learned Counsel has as such submitted that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel further points out that some other persons had also engaged casual labourers for such activities during the said period after 27.2.1982. The learned Counsel has as such submitted that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel further points out that some other persons had also engaged casual labourers for such activities during the said period after 27.2.1982. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondents have not been vigilant in taking the alleged action against the Petitioner for the breach allegedly committed by the Petitioner and as such the penalty imposed deserves to be set aside. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Before we go into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to note the Statement of the imputations of the misconduct/misbehaviour against the Petitioner herein Rule II of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The allegation was that the Petitioner was functioning as a Senior Electric Foreman (BHE) on Baroda-Godhra Anand Electrification work during the period 198284 has committed gross misconduct for engaging persons as casual labourers after 1.1.1981 without obtaining the approval of the Competent authority and in contravention of the Railway Board's directions not to engage fresh casual labourers on or after 1.1.1981. The claim was that as such the Petitioner had violated Rule 3 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct Rules) 1966. The allegation against the Petitioner inter alia was that he had engaged 65 persons as casual labourers after the said date. The Disciplinary Committee after going through the reply filed by the Petitioner found him guilty of the charges as contained in the Charges Sheet memo dated 9.5.1991 and imposed on him penalty of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 6. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the penalty imposed on him. The Appellate Authority while considering the said Appeal has taken note of the fact that the Petitioner admitted engaging fresh casual labourers after 1.1.1981. The only plea taken by the Petitioner was that he had not received such instructions which was otherwise disputed by the Respondents as according to them it was circulated by the Western Railway to the Officers vide their D.O.letter No.E (R&T) 614/24 dated 14.7.1981. The Appellate Authority held that contents of the directions of the Railway Board were to the knowledge of the Petitioner. The Appellate Authority held that contents of the directions of the Railway Board were to the knowledge of the Petitioner. The Authority as such found that the fact that the Petitioner had engaged casual labourers after 1.1.1981 has been proved by adducing evidence. The Appellate Authority thereafter, also considered the contentions of the Petitioner with regard to delay in initiating such disciplinary proceedings. The Authority found that the Rules do not prescribe any specific time limit while he is still in service and that delay by itself does not save the Petitioner. Contentions of the Petitioner that he was awarded higher quantum of punishment as compared to others, it was noted that the punishment depended on the number of casual labourers engaged by other officers. In the present case, it is found that the Petitioner engaged 65 casual labourers during the said period. The Appellate Authority as such found that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner was not a major penalty and the Appeal was accordingly rejected. 7. In the Original Application filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A.No.372 of 1994 the Tribunal noted that with regard to the contention of the Petitioner about the legality and validity of the order of punishment of penalty, under the Rules separate procedures are provided for major penalty charge sheet and minor penalty charge Sheet. In the case of major penalty Charge Sheet, a regular inquiry has to be held but whereas in the case of a minor penalty Charge Sheet, the official has to give a reply to the charge sheet and on that basis the disciplinary Authority can pass appropriate orders. It is further being noted that Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 11 provides that delinquent official must be informed of the Statement of Imputation and Misconduct against him and be given a reasonable opportunity of making such a representation as he may wish. Thereafter, on the basis of such a representation the Disciplinary Authority can proceed to pass orders. On such considerations the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no need of a regular inquiry in case of minor penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the fact that some casual labourers were engaged by the Petitioner is not disputed at all. On such considerations the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no need of a regular inquiry in case of minor penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the fact that some casual labourers were engaged by the Petitioner is not disputed at all. The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Competent Authority i.e. General Manager upon going through the records found that casual labourers were engaged by the Petitioner even beyond 14.7.1981 inspite of the ban by the Railway Board. The Tribunal also noted that the Disciplinary Authority had accepted part of the explanation given by the Petitioner that the casual labourers were appointed in the interest of administration and that is why the Authority had taken a lenient view and imposed a penalty of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 8. As regards the contention of the Petitioner that some of the officials were let of with censure or warning, the learned Tribunal noted that as far as punishment is concerned, it is a pure question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal further noted that as far as the Petitioner is concerned he had employed or engaged 65 casual labourers whereas some of the Officers had engaged 3 or 4 casual labourers and in such circumstances the said contention of the Petitioner came to be rejected. The Tribunal also found no fault with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and held that there was no case for any interference in the impugned orders. With regard to the contention that the Petitioner ought to have been promoted in 1992 the Tribunal noted that this could not be done when the charge sheet was pending against the Petitioner in the year 1992 and as such sealed cover proceeds was adopted. The Tribunal also noted that the Circular dated 2.7.1990 clearly says that in the case of penalty of withholding of increment, the official cannot be promoted before the expiry of the penalty. For other reasons stated therein the application came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 9. We find no infirmity at all in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The findings rendered therein are on the basis of the material on record. For other reasons stated therein the application came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 9. We find no infirmity at all in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The findings rendered therein are on the basis of the material on record. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there was delay in filing the charge sheet we find that there is no period prescribed for issuing such charge sheet by the Respondents. In any event, in the present case the Authorities below found that the Petitioner had in fact admitted that he engaged the casual labourers despite of the ban by the Railway Board. Apart from that there is nothing on record to show that the Respondents had deliberately delayed in filing such charge sheet. As no prejudice has been shown to the Petitioner on account of such latches, we find that the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 10. The Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS BANI SINGH & anr (1991) 16 Administrative Tribunals Cases 514 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, at the time when the promotion of an Official was under consideration, a preliminary inquiry had not even been conducted and as such it was held that this should not have weighed with the Screening Committee in deferring the decision regarding selection of the official for selection grade. Facts in the present case are totally different which have been clearly brought forward by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order referred to herein above. 11. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to lead evidence, we find that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention on the basis of the Rules considering that Charge Sheet against the Petitioner was for a minor penalty. 12. Taking a note of the fact that the Petitioner himself has admitted that he had engaged casual labourers despite of the ban imposed by the Railway Board, we find that the penalty imposed is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 12. Taking a note of the fact that the Petitioner himself has admitted that he had engaged casual labourers despite of the ban imposed by the Railway Board, we find that the penalty imposed is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that similarly placed delinquent officials were given lessor punishment has also been rightly dealt with by the learned Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application filed by the officials. 13. In view of the above, we find that the fact finding authority has on sufficient evidence found that the charges against the Petitioner are proved and the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and the learned Tribunal have also found it proper to accept these findings. Suffice it to say that nothing is available before this Court to conclude that the decision making process or the procedure followed by the authorities are in any way defective. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no illegality committed by the Authorities below whilst disposing the proceedings against the Petitioner and as such the above Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.