Ghouse Khan Budankhan Tinwale vs Union of India

N.K. Patil, J.—The petitioner in this petition has sought to quash the order dated 09/04/2013 passed in O.A. 181/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, (Annexure-A) and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner''s pay to Rs. 20,270/- as last drawn and arrange to refund the recovered amount and arrange all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that, he is a retired Railway employee. While he was working as Crew Controller, he erroneously booked a driver who was under rest for working in a Passenger train while four other drivers who were there have completed their rest. This wrong booking of driver caused detention to train No. PKL-TLN passenger train for 1 hour 45 minutes and he was punished with next increment cut for 2 years (recurring). When the period of punishment was over, petitioner was restored. His basic was fixed at Rs. 20,270/- at the time of his retirement. But later when his retirement benefits and pension were to be calculated, his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 19,070/- without any notice. Later, they explained that it was because the punishment was with recurring effect and without taking this factor, his basic was drawn. It is the further case of the petitioner that, according to Railway Administration recurring nature will have effect on his future increments also which is a wrong interpretation of the Rule and against the clarification given by the Railway Board. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant has filed O.A. No. 181/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.

The said matter had come up-for consideration before the Tribunal on 9/4/2013. The Tribunal, after hearing, has dismissed the same holding that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has presented this petition, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

The ground urged by the petitioner in this petition is, the Tribunal has failed to consider the grounds urged by him and erred in rejecting his application on the sole ground that, the reliance placed by him is not applicable to his case, on the ground that., he has lost 2 years increment cumulatively and he had not challenged the decision at that time and has become final and the said reasoning given by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the prayer sought by him is liable to be granted.

After going through the grounds urged by the petitioner in the memorandum of writ petition and after perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, it is manifest on the face of the same that, there is no error or material irregularity, resulting in any miscarriage of justice. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for rejecting the prayer sought by the petitioner in the application in paras 2 and 3 of the order is well founded and well reasoned and therefore, it does not call for interference.

It is significant to note that, earlier, when the petitioner has committed some mistake, a penalty of cumulatively effective increment reduction for 2 years was imposed on him in 2005. In 2007, following the Sixth Pay Commission, his pay was fixed erroneously without taking into account the above diminishment in the pay structure of the petitioner and in the year 2009 he voluntarily retired from service, then at this point of time, it was discovered that the punishment he was undergoing was not brought into effect. The petitioner has challenged retrieval on the ground that in accordance with Rule 1323 of Indian Railway Establishment Code which is similar to F.R. 20, if a Railway servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower stage in his time scale., the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it would be effective and on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increment and if so to what extent. It is the case of the petitioner that non cumulative nature punishment which is not applicable to him. A cumulative reduction cannot be restored. Therefore, without any doubt this rule is not applicable to the petitioner as he has permanently lost those two years increments and he had not challenged the same at that time and it has become final. Further it emerges from the records available that, the order passed is after conducting enquiry and that has become final as he has not chosen to question the same. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in declining the prayer sought by the petitioner in the application. Taking all these factors into consideration, we do not find any justification or good grounds, as such, made out by the petitioner to entertain the relief sought in this petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits.