S PADMANABHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a Station Master Grade-II working in the Palghat Division of Southern Railway. He was issued with A 1 minor penalty charge-memo dated 10.6.98 by the 4th respondent. THE said Al charge memo was served on him on 14.7.98. Applicant gave A2 reply dated 21.7.98 inter alia praying for holding an enquiry under Rule 11 (2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Applicant received A3 reply dated 5.8.98 issued by the 4th respondent. In A3, applicant's request for conducting an enquiry was rejected. THE applicant was directed to give reply within 7 days of the receipt of the letter. Applicant was also served with A-4 letter dated 17.9.98 asking him to give his explanation within one week from the date of issue of the said letter. By A-5 letter dated 4.11.1998 the penalty advice withholding his increment due on 1.3.2000 for 12 months without the effect of postponing the future increments was issued to him. Applicant filed A-6 appeal addressed to the second respondent. By A-7 letter dated 30.11.1998 4th respondent advised him to submit the appeal addressed to the ADRM. Applicant filed A-8 letter dated 16.12.98. Applicant received A-9 reply dated 8.2.99 which is impugned herein. Sating that he has been subjected to substantial prejudice and irreparable damages and alleging that A3, A5 and A9 were totally arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law and without application of mind and hence violative of Articles 14 and 16 and 300-A of the Constitution applicant filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Respondent filed reply statement resisting the claim of the applicant. They advanced a number of pleas in support. According to respondents the applicant was charge-sheeted for minor penalty proceedings on the charge that he had issued a blank Fist Class Privilege Pass duly stamped and signed by him to an outsider for pecuniary benefits and also for not taking appropriate action regarding missing foil till it was detected by the Vigilance Organisation. Applicant had acknowledged the charge-sheet on 14.7.98. He submitted a representation dated 21.7.98 to the 4th respondent who after considering all the aspects of the case advised the applicant that since the charges were specific it was felt that no enquiry was warranted in that case. The advise was acknowledged by the applicant. Inspite of advise to him to submit his representation by A-3 the applicant did not submit his explanation. Hence, the Disciplinary authority after considering all aspects of the case decided the case ex-parte and imposed a penalty of withholding of increment due on 1.3.2000 for the period of 12 months (non-recurring), as per the penalty advice which was one of the impugned orders. As per instructions contained in CPO, Southern Railway, Madras dated 21.10.94 except in cases of accidents, appeal was with the third respondent Additional Divisional Railway Manager (ADRM) and not Divisional Railway Manager (DRM). Hence the applicant was advised to submit the appeal to the competent appellate authority viz. ADRM. The said communication was acknowledged by the applicant and he did not prefer any appeal. As per A-9 the 4th respondent again advised the applicant to address the appeal to the ADRM being the appellate authority. The applicant did not prefer any appeal and without exhausting all the available remedies the applicant had filed this O.A. and hence the O.A. was not maintainable and devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed. The operating department in which the applicant was working was attached to ADRM was per R-1 letter dated 23.11.90. As per order No. J/P/227/P dated 12.1.2000 issued by the DRM in the matter of powers to be exercised under Schedule II of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 all the departments of the division were placed under the ADRM, whereas the DRM alone would exercise the powers in cases related to train accidents.

(3.) WE have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the rival pleadings and perused the documents brought on record.