- (1.) The Union of India and the Railway Administration has approached the Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure P.6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 997/Pb. 2003 allowing the O.A. filed by one Subhash Chander- respondent No. 1. It is appropriate to notice that respondent No. 1 has been working as Chief Train Clerk at Bhatinda. He was charge sheeted for infliction of major penalty on 29.7.1998 (Annexure P.1). Following charges were levelled against him. "Shri Subhash Chandra while posted and working as CTNC/BTI under. SS/BTI on 20.2.98 from 0.800 hrs to 1600 hrs was subjected to a vigilance check. He was detected to have committed the following irregularities/misconduct :- That he was deployed for filing of vehicles summaries on 20.2.98. He did the tiling of inward and outward summaries but he did not take proper action on the remark available on vehicle summary of BTI coal rake reached BTI on 19.2.98 at 1805 hrs. He intentionally escaped the R/F advice and did not send the papers to Goods Shed at 1300 hrs. on 20.2.98. There was a remark available on the vehicle seminary i.e. "one copy of rewighment result is enclosed" which Sh. Subhash Chandra overlooked and caused penalty of overloading, amounting to Rs. 1021535.00 could not be realized from the consignee. Sh. Subhash Chandra excepted the papers for his personal gain with his malafide intention. By the above acts of omissions and commission, Shri Subhash Chandra, CTNC/BTI failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibit lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant, thereby contravened the provisions of Rule No. 31 (i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966."
(2.) The enquiry officer after detailed enquiry returned the finding that the charges against the applicant-respondent were not proved as per his report dated 28.3.2000 (A.4). A copy of the enquiry report was served upon the applicant-respondent for his comments (A.5). On 4.7.2001, he requested the Disciplinary Authority to close the enquiry proceedings as he was exonerated. The Disciplinary Authority, however, expressed disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. However the Tribunal has held that the Disciplinary Authority did not follow the procedure for recording dis-agreement. The procedure for such a course has been prescribed in Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1968 which reads as under : "The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with due findings of the Enquiry authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose." The Tribunal has noticed that in a fetter dated 21.9.2001 issued in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Cantt. wherein it has been indicated that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and the following grounds were mentioned. (i) "That you were working as CTNC on duty in 0800 to 1600 hrs shift on 20.2.1998 when a public coal rake of 40 BCN ex LLO which reached BTI on 19.21. 1998 was under released on 20. 12,1998. (ii). That, you could have played a more vigilant role and served the Railways from the loss of lacs of rupees. You overlooked the Vehicle summary and re-weighment advice and did not sent these papers to the Goods Shed before the removal of the consignment."
(3.) The Tribunal after noticing the afore-mentioned grounds came to categorical conclusion that on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Punishing Authority that applicant-respondent could have played more vigilant role and saved the railway from loss of lacy of rupees could not be substitute for recording reasons for such dis-agreement as required by Rule 10(3) of the Rules. The Tribunal has also recorded another finding that no plausible reasons have been given by the Disciplinary Authority to conclude that the finding of the enquiry office were erroneous and intact the charges were proved. The Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kuni Bihari Mishra, 1998 7 SCC 84 which lays down that in case the Disciplinary Authority disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer then it should record reasons for dis-agreement and communicate them to the charged officer giving him an opportunity to make representation against such a finding. The Tribunal has opined that the Punishing Authority without considering the issue raised by the applicant-respondent has passed an order on 12.7.2001 holding him guilty and has imposed major penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale in the same time scale for a period of five nears.;