Gomber, J. - (1.) HEARD at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 2.8.2011, whereby his OA was dismissed. Briefly stated facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner, appointed as Assistant Station Master in April 1989, was promoted as Station Master on 27.5.1992 and his career remained unblemished. But Chief Signal Inspector Mr. Verma had some malice against him and, therefore, in order to take vengeance, he lodged a false complaint about his negligence in service on 27.10.2009. On the basis of this report, a memorandum calling upon his explanation was issued on 16.11.2009. The petitioner submitted his representation but respondent no.3 passed the order of withholding his three increments on 23.12.2009. Appeal filed against this order was also dismissed on 6.4.2010. Aggrieved therefrom, he filed OA before learned Central Administrative Tribunal, which came to be disposed on 2.8.2011 against him. The validity of the order dated 2.8.2011 passed by learned tribunal, has been questioned before this court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before the tribunal that the learned Inquiry Officer as also the Appellate Authority, without going into the merit and without holding proper inquiry, passed the impugned order. In his appeal he had specifically challenged the penalty order but his appeal was also dismissed cursorily by respondent no.3. Charge against the petitioner was that on 27.10.2009 when he was on duty as Station Master, he was found sleeping at 0037 hours. But the petitioner disputed this fact by saying that at about 0030 hours train no.2966 passed and, therefore, the allegation of his sleeping on duty, was totally baseless and it was just because of malice of the Chief Signal Inspector Mr. Verma that he had been falsely implicated, and that the learned tribunal has also not examined his case thoroughly. The respondents, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Inquiry Officer as also the Appellate Authority, and the learned tribunal contended that the penalty was correctly imposed and the three increments were withheld without future effect as is clear from Annexure A1. While passing order impugned, learned tribunal held that proper procedure had been followed by respondents while imposing the penalty and that it was proved from the record that the petitioner was found sleeping during duty hours by not only one person but by a joint inspection team and his sleeping on duty was against the safety rules.
(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order, we do not find any ground for interference because the learned tribunal has appreciated the rules of inquiry in cases of minor and major penalties and procedure laid down. The allegation of annoyance of the Chief Signal Inspector is also not tenable because the inspection was made not only by one person but by joint inspection team. Rules 9 & 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968, were not applicable in this case because it was a case of minor penalty, as is clear from the charge-sheet Annexure A3 dated 16.11.2009. Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 provides that where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied with the facts on record, it is not necessary to hold inquiry before imposing minor penalty and it could be imposed on the basis of the facts on record. Joint surprise inspection was conducted by the CSI/CMI and the contention of petitioner about passing of train no.2966 at 0030 hours from that station, was also found incorrect because as per record train no.2966 had crossed the station at 0145 hours. In view of the foregoing discussion, this is not a fit case which warrants any interference of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is found to have been committed by the tribunal while passing impugned order. This court, while exercising extraordinary powers has to look into as to whether by passing the order impugned, the court below has exceeded the jurisdiction or has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it or has acted in a manner which has led to the abuse of process of law. In the case in hand, no miscarriage of justice has been caused by passing the impugned order, nor has the learned tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The learned tribunal, while passing the cogent and reasoned order, has looked into each and every aspect of the case, which does not warrant any interference of this court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ;