SATISH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the night of 10.4.1994 a goods train was proceeding from Manmad to Summit station and when it had reached Km 255/8 the engine of the goods train stalled. There was gradient of 1 in 132 where the train came to stop and after some time the train started rolling back and collided with the stationary rake No. 1328 UP at MMR station resulting into fatal injuries to the passengers on the platform and heavy loss to the Railways. The applicant was the driver of the ill fated goods train and after suspension, on account of this incident, was served with a charge-sheet on 24.5.1994 levelling imputations of negligence and carelessness on his part in performing his duties to take necessary precaution to prevent the train from rolling back. It was alleged that he failed to carry out trouble shooting as per prescribed instructions and had failed to take preventive measures as laid down in Para 6.4.2 of the G&SR since his train stalled on steep gradient of 1 in 132 for duration longer than 15 minutes. It was also alleged that he had failed to keep A9 brake in applied position on the steep gradient of 1 in 132 for nearly one hour and had failed to physically check whether the train brakes had been applied or not. ON the applicant denying the charges levelled against him, an inquiry was instituted in the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer, on completion of the inquiry submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the Article-1 of the charge was not fully established, Article-2 was fully established, Article No. 3 was established and Article No. 4 was partially established. The Disciplinary Authority, after furnishing copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the applicant and inviting his representation thereon, agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of reduction to lower post of Assistant Driver in the grade of Rs. 900-1500 fixing his pay at Rs. 950/- permanently with immediate effect. ON appeal, Appellate Authority, though agreeing with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority reduced the punishment to that of reduction in lower rank for a period of five years. The mercy petition preferred by the applicant thereafter had come to be rejected and hence this O.A. is preferred by the applicant challenging the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. He has also moved M.P. 654/99 for condoning the delay in filing this application.

(2.) The contention of the applicant is that the charges levelled against him were vague in nature and they were not fully proved. He was not imparted training in the operation of air brake and therefore he could not have been held liable for negligence and carelessness in preventing the train from rolling back. The engine of the train stalled on account of mechanical failure for which he cannot be held liable. The train had stopped at K.M. No. 255/8 Between Manmad and Summit at about 09.30 pm due to engine trouble and at about 10.28 pm the train had started rolling back and collided with stationary rake No. 1382 at Manmad resulting into derailment. According to him he had taken all necessary precautionary measure to prevent the train from rolling back and the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet only suggests irregularity and not negligence or carelessness on his part. He has also contended that though the Inquiry Officer had held that the Charge No. 1 was now established fully and Charge No. 4 was partially established the Disciplinary Authority had held that all the charges were established and on the basis of the same imposed the punishment on him. The Disciplinary Authority had however not recorded any reasons for his disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and not served the applicant with any notice informing him about his disagreement and inviting his representation prior to awarding the punishment to him. This has clearly vitiated punishment imposed on him. The Appellate Authority has also not considered this aspect and has mechanically upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority, only reducing the penalty to some extent. The General Manager, Central Railway had thereafter, issued a letter dated 25.10.1996 stating that in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 25(1) to Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 he desired to enhance the punishment of reduction to that of Assistant Driver permanently on the basic pay of Rs. 950/-. The applicant had submitted his representation against this enhancement notice to the General Manager on 17.11.1996 but the General Manager by his order dated 31.1.1997 enhanced the punishment to that of permanent reversion to Assistant Driver in the scale of Rs. 950-1500. The applicant preferred statutory appeal against the said punishment order of the General Manager and the Railway Board reduced the punishment to that of reduction to the lower grade of Assistant Driver in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 for a period of five years with his pay fixed at Rs. 950/- with loss of seniority with cumulative effect. According to the applicant while reducing the penalty the Railway Board observed that the failure on the his part to apply the train brakes was attributable to his inadequate knowledge of significance of the rate of drop of brake pipe pressure in automatic application of train brakes. However, he had failed to notice, when he walked past the entire rake to the rear of the train, that the train brakes had not been automatically applied in this case. Had he noticed this, he could have taken necessary action to apply train brakes and prevented the train from sliding back. According to the applicant this was entirely a new charge which was not included in the original charge-sheet and no opportunity was given to him to meet this charge. He had also contended that since the Inquiry Officer had exonerated him, it was not proper on the part of the Railway Administration to punish him. He has therefore prayed that the penalty imposed on him be quashed and set aside and he be restored to the post of goods driver grade with all consequential benefits.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the documents on record.