ASHOK SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE working as Senior Clerk a major penalty memorandum dated 8.5.98 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, the Rules, 1968) was issued to the applicant alleging violation of Rule 3.1(i)(ii)(iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The charge against the applicant was that he misbehaved using abusive and objectionable language when he was called upon by the Assistant Personnel Officer to explain his conduct of 28.4.98. He is alleged to have conducted himself in an objectionable manner when memo was served on him on 28.4.98 by one Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Confidential Assistant. The applicant denied the allegation vide his letter dated 18.5.98. On 26.8.98, the charge-sheet dated 8.5.98 was cancelled and another charge-sheet dated 26.8.98 was issued. The articles of charge in this cahrgesheet remained the same as were included in the chageshcet dated 8.5.98. This was followed by another letter dated 7.9.98 in which the reasons for cancelling the earlier charge-sheet have been indicated. An oral inquiry was held and the charge of misbehaviour was held to be established. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 19.5.99 (Ann.A/2) imposed upon the applicant the penalty of removal from service. In appeal, the appellate authority i.e. DRM Jodhpur modified the penalty by reducing the same from 'removal from service' to that of reduction in lower grade from Rs. 4500-7000/ - to the grade Rs. 3050-4590/- permanently with pay at Rs. 3350/- per month. It was further mentioned in the penalty order that the applicant shall be posted out of his cadre and for his promotion to the post of Senior Clerk he will have to qualify in the suitability test. As a result of this order, the applicant was posted to work under Senior Section Engineer, Samdari, i.e. he was shifted from the cadre of Personnel Branch to the Engineering Branch. By filing this OA, the applicant has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority dated 19.5.99 (Ann.A/2) and order of the appellate authority dated 21.9.99 (Ann.A/3). He has also assailed the charge-sheet dated 26.8.98.

(2.) Plea of the applicant is that the charge-sheet is void ab initio mainly for two reasons; (i) while cancelling the earlier charge-sheet no reasons have been disclosed. It is only by a latter communication, the reasons have been indicated and this makes the charge-sheet illegal as two charge-sheets cannot be issued on the same charge; (ii) the charge-sheet has been issued by Assistant Personnel Officer, who is not competent to issue a major penalty charge-sheet to the applicant.

(3.) THE respondents in their reply have denied the averments of the applicant in the OA and have stated that there is no infirmity in the entire proceedings. THE charge-sheet has been issued by the competent authority and the oral inquiry has been held by giving full opportunity to the applicant. THE respondents have defended the order of penalty as modified by the appellate authority by saying that in so far as the posting of the applicant to Engineering Department is concerned, it is an administrative matter and no a matter of penalty. Otherwise, according to the respondents, the order of penalty suffers from no illegality.