Bhupendrabhai Mohanlal Daudia vs Union of India and Others

A.G. Uraizee, J.—The writ petitioner has preferred the present petition to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 18th April 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad (for short, ''the Tribunal'') in Original Application No. 407 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application. The factual background of the present petition can be summed up as under:

The petitioner was working as Head Clerk under CPWI, Hapa. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 15th May 2002 for the following charges:-

3.2 Statement of Imputation:

As per Sr. S.E. (P. Way) Hapa''s letter date 10.05.2002, Shri Bhupendra Daudia while working as Time Keeper, under SE (P. Way) Hapa unit from 1997 onwards, has failed to submit necessary due and Draen (DD) Cards of arrears of difference of night duty Allowance (NDA) of staff of Sr. S.E. (P. Way), Hapa for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.07.1997 and for subsequent period of 01.08.1998 to 31.12.2001 till date. Shri Daudia also failed to submit necessary DD Cards of arrears of Pay Fixation from 01.01.1996 of 135 employees of SSE (P. Way) Hapa after issue of necessary Memorandum for the same by DEN (E) JAM is enclosed). Shri Daudia has also delayed submission of arrears of difference of Travelling Allowance of 156 employees of SSE (P. Way) Hapa by about 4 years period.

The above delay in payment of legitimate cause of difference of arrears of TA, NDA and Pay Fixation arrears of staff of SSE (P. Way) Hapa shows gross negligence in Rly. working on the part of Shri Bhupendra Daudia, Time Keeper resulting in unnecessary hardship to the staff of SSE (P. Way) Hapa and accordingly affected their Railway working. Thus, Railway working violated Rule No. 3.1(ii) & (iii) of Rly. Services (Conduct) Rules, 1996.

The petitioner denied the charges whereupon the Enquiry Officer came to be appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report recording the following conclusions:

The points which have come up during the course of enquiry in the part of the proceedings of the enquiry are concluded here.

6.1 The charges are mostly proved as the CO. Is responsible for delay in submitting necessary D.D. Cards of arrears of difference of NDA and arrears of difference of Travelling Allowance. But, the delay in submitting necessary DD Cards of arrears of pay fixation is genuine.

6.2 As the claim of honorarium for preparation of arrear works of Fifth Pay Commission are not paid to CO. till date even after claiming on 16.4.199, which may please be looked into also to encourage the working staff.

Based on the conclusion and opinion given by the Enquiry Officer a notice came to be issued to the petitioner and ultimately the order of punishment of reduction to a lower scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7000 at a pay scale of Rs. 5000 for three years without future effect was passed on 30th January 2003. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner before the departmental authorities came to be rejected. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 407 of 2003 to quash the punishment inflicted upon him. The aforesaid Application was rejected by the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.

Heard learned advocate, Mr. Hasit Joshi for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Malkan for the respondent.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the petitioner was given a target date of 30th May 2002 for submitting the pay fixation arrears and he completed the said work on 25th May 2002, before expiry of the target date. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have taken very harsh view in inflicting the punishment and the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the Original Application of the petitioner and hence he would urge that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order of punishment may be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the petitioner had committed a gross negligence in not preparing the pay fixation arrears and there was gross delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the necessary DD cards of difference of arrears as a result of which large number of employees had suffered. In his submission, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and therefore this petition may be dismissed.

In a recent judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of R. Mahalingam v. Chairman, TNPSC and another, AIR 2013 SC 2225 has considered the scope of review in matters involving challenge to the disciplinary action taken by the employer, in the following words:

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The scope of judicial review in matters involving challenge to the disciplinary action taken by the employer is very limited. The Courts are primarily concerned with the question whether the enquiry has been held by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure and whether the rules of natural justice have been followed. The Court can also consider whether there was some tangible evidence for proving the charge against the delinquent and such evidence reasonably supports the conclusions recorded by the competent authority. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was held in consonance with the prescribed procedure and the rules of natural justice and the conclusion recorded by the disciplinary authority is supported by some tangible evidence, then there is no scope for interference with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority to impose the particular punishment except when the same is found to be wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved or shocks the conscience of the Court.

Keeping the above settled proposition of law regarding the scope of the present petition, we have to examine whether the petitioner has made out any case for interference in the action taken by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Tribunal in OA No. 407 of 2003.

There is no cavil so far as the fact that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the necessary DD cards of arrears and arrears of pay fixation. The perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer shows that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the following findings in respect of pay fixation arrears:

5.2.6 Regarding delay in pay fixation arrears for 135 employees, the necessary memo was issued by ADEN (E) JAM on different dates of August, 2001. CPWI. HAPA i.e. PW also cleared in his letter No. NIL dated 10/05/02, which is relied upon documents no. 1 that his time keeper was busy to prepare Computerised bills at RJT for HAPA unit 10 days per month since last 6 months. Now he is free above and started preparation of the above statement, which is under progress and will be completed and submitted to DRM(E) RJT by 30/05/2002 by my TK.

As per record, the T.K. i.e. CO. submitted necessary pay fixation arrears on 22/5/02 i.e. before the target date given by CPMT, HAPA.

Thus, it is very clear that the petitioner has completed the work of submitting pay fixation arrears before the target date. Based on the above findings, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the delay in submitting the necessary DD cards of arrears of pay fixation is genuine. Therefore, the only charge which was found proved against the petitioner was of delay in submitting the necessary D.D. Cards of arrears of difference of NDA and arrears of difference of Travelling Allowance, etc. There is nothing on the record to show that because of delay in preparation of these D.D. Cards of arrears of difference of NDA and arrears of difference of Travelling Allowance any financial loss is caused to the affected employees. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner was overburdened with the work, which has resulted into the delay. The punishment inflicted on the petitioner of reduction to a lower scale without future effect is too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved against the petitioner. The submission of the learned advocate for the respondent that the punishment of reduction to a lower scale is only for 3 years without future effect and therefore according to him no permanent loss is caused to the petitioner is devoid of substance. The reduction in lower grade for 3 years, albeit without future effect, would cause huge financial loss to the petitioner who is a small employee. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner could not have been visited with a harsh punishment of reduction in lower pay scale for 3 years without future effect for the delay on the part of the petitioner in preparing the DD cards of arrears of difference of NDA and arrears of difference of TA. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the petitioner showed indolent attitude in discharge of his duty, but, at the same time, the punishment of reduction in lower pay scale for 3 years without future effect, in our opinion, is wholly disproportionate to the charge proved against him. In the premises aforesaid, we allow the present petition. The punishment of reduction into a lower scale for 3 years without future effect passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 30th January 2003 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 18th April 2005 of the Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 407 of 2003 is also set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The parties to bear their own costs.