Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 279 (GAU)

Union of India v. Debal Roy

2021-03-16

M.R.PATHAK, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed by the Union of India against the common order dated 07.07.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench passed in Original Application Nos. 33/2013 and 94/2013 which was filed by the sole respondent herein against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein Sri Debal Roy who was working as Enquiry Cum Reservation Clerk at Silchar in North East Frontier Railway at the relevant point of time when a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and he was charged on four counts. The four Article of Charges framed against the respondent are extracted hereinbelow:- "Article-I Shri Debol Roy ECRC/SCL while performing duty at PRS/SCL committed a serious misconduct in as much as he entertained two requisition slips i.e. 3 & 4 tendered by the same person bears same handwriting under DTC serial number 4 & 5 and PNR 6202731632 and 6202731770 have been generated consecutively at 8.12 hours and 8.14 hours without any specific journey date Ex. GHY to HWH by Dn Saraighat Exp from tatkal service quota irregularly. Article-II Shri Debol Roy ECRC/SCL while performing duty at PRS/SCL committed a serious misconduct in as much as he entertained three nos. of requisition slips i.e. requisition slip no. 5, 6 & 7 tendered by the same person bears same handwriting under DTC serial no. 6, 7 & 8 against which PNR 6202731924, 6400415132 and 6302732096 have been generated consecutively at 8.17, 8.19 and 8.20 hours with different date of journey Ex. GHY to LTT on 18.3.07 Ex. Kolkata to Mumbai on 9.5.07 and Ex. Kolkata to Mumbai on 4.5.07 irregularly. Article-III Shri Debol Roy ECRC/SCL while performing duty at PRS/SCL committed a serious misconduct in as much as he entertained two nos. of requisition slips i.e. Sl. no. 53 & 54 by a single person which bears same handwriting under DTC Sl. no. 69 & 70 against which PNR 620274269 and 6202130906 have been generated consecutively at 11.13 and 11.14 hours for journey on 14.3.07 and 18.3.07 Ex. GHY to LTT. Article-IV Shri Debol Roy ECRC/SCL while performing duty at PRS/SCL committed a serious misconduct in as much as he entertained 3 nos. of requisition slips Sl. no. no. 69 & 70 against which PNR 620274269 and 6202130906 have been generated consecutively at 11.13 and 11.14 hours for journey on 14.3.07 and 18.3.07 Ex. GHY to LTT. Article-IV Shri Debol Roy ECRC/SCL while performing duty at PRS/SCL committed a serious misconduct in as much as he entertained 3 nos. of requisition slips Sl. no. 19, 20 and 21 for cancellation of journey against which PNR have been generated under DTC Sl. no. 21, 22 and 23 (PNR 6201429541, 6101429548 and 6301429512 which bears same handwriting tendered by a single person." 4. Basic charges against the petitioner were that he had received more than one requisition slips for reservation from the same person, who requested him for reservation at different places which was against the law. The Inquiry Officer after consideration of all the four Article of Charges came to the conclusion, that the charges framed against the delinquent officer i.e. Shri Debol Roy (sole respondent herein) are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and on 29.09.2010 and a copy was served upon Shri Debol Roy saying that the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the reasons as to the disagreement along with the each finding was also given to the respondent herein, on which the Shri Debol Roy gave his reply and consequently vide order dated 22.02.2011 penalty of "reduction of pay by one stage lower in the time scale of pay for a period of 2(two) years with cumulative effect" was imposed upon him. 5. The respondent herein challenged the penalty so imposed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by filing Original Application Nos. 33/2013 and 94/2014, which were allowed by the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal was that though the charges framed against the petitioner (respondent herein) was grave had this charges been proved, there would have been no reason for interfering with the quantum of punishment, but there was a procedural illegality and the procedural illegality was that the report or the findings of the Vigilance Department was not supplied to the petitioner (respondent herein). Hence, the order of punishment was set aside. Challenging the common order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos. 33/2013 and 94/2013, the present petitioners approached this Court for setting aside the said common order. 6. Hence, the order of punishment was set aside. Challenging the common order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos. 33/2013 and 94/2013, the present petitioners approached this Court for setting aside the said common order. 6. We have heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the sole respondent herein at length. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent herein who was at the relevant time working as Enquiry Cum Reservation Clerk at Silchar in North East Frontier Railway was allegedly spotted by the Vigilance Department and it was on the initiation of the Vigilance Department that an inquiry was initiated against him, in which subsequently four article of charges were framed and charge sheet were given to the respondent herein which we have already referred to above. Consequent to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the delinquent officer (respondent herein) are not proved and he gave his findings to that effect. The report of the Inquiry Officer, however, was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The main reason for disagreement being the advice of none other but the Vigilance Department itself. As the learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the Vigilance Department gave its comment to each of the Article of Charges, which according to the Vigilance Department stood proved. When we compare the comments of the Vigilance Department to the comment of the Disciplinary Authority, we find that they were verbatim the same, a fact which has been very fairly accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. In other words, the reason for disagreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer was the advice or the findings of the Vigilance Department. In all fairness, therefore, these findings of the Vigilance Department should have been supplied to the delinquent officer i.e. the respondent herein. It does not matter nor does it help the case of the petitioners herein even if the findings of the Vigilance Department and that of the Disciplinary Authority are the same. Therefore, although the findings are the same, yet the facts remains that the report of the Vigilance Department which is contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, were never supplied to the delinquent officer. Therefore, although the findings are the same, yet the facts remains that the report of the Vigilance Department which is contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, were never supplied to the delinquent officer. It should have supplied and therefore its non-supply vitiates the entire proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority, and we are therefore in agreement with the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal that there was grave procedural irregularity committed while imposing penalty against the respondent herein. 7. Consequently, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the common order of the Tribunal dated 07.07.2015. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.